Comparação dos efeitos de sugamadex e neostigmina em náusea e vômito no pós‐operatório

Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction After Neuromuscular Blockade Reversal With Sugammadex Versus Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (POGD) commonly occurs following gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and is associated with specific anesthetic agents. Cholinesterase inhibitors employed for reversing neuromuscular blockade have been implicated in development of POGD. Sugammadex, a novel reversal agent, is linked with reduced POGD. However, there is a lack of comprehensive comparative review between these agents regarding their impact on POGD following GI surgery. This study aims to systematically review the effects of sugammadex on POGD compared to cholinesterase inhibitors following GI surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched as of July 2022 to identify articles comparing sugammadex with cholinesterase inhibitors in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, specifically in relation to POGD. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, readmission rates, pulmonary complications, and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

From 198 citations, 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 3 retrospective cohorts with 717 patients receiving sugammadex and 812 patients receiving cholinesterase inhibitors were included. Significantly lower rates of prolonged postoperative ileus (OR .44, 95% CI .25-.77, P < .05, I2 = 56%, low certainty evidence) was observed with sugammadex. No significant difference in any other outcome was observed. Narrative review of readmission data demonstrated no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

The use of sugammadex following gastrointestinal surgery is associated with significantly lower rates of prolonged postoperative ileus compared to cholinesterase inhibitors. However, these do not translate into a significant reduction in length of stay, morbidity, or postoperative nausea and vomiting. Results are limited by the numer of studies included and missing data, more robust RCTs are needed before recommendations can be made.

Sugammadex Reduced the Incidence of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Susceptible Patients Identified by ARISCAT Risk Index: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of sugammadex on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in susceptible patients, compared with neostigmine, remains indeterminate. The Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia (ARISCAT) Group Investigators proposed a risk index for the early identification of susceptible patients, with excellent externally validated discrimination ability. Meta-analytical techniques were applied to evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex on PPCs in patients with ARISCAT-defined risk factors.

METHODS

The study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42021261156. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane library, GreyNet, and OpenGrey for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) without restricting the language or year of publication.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs consisting of 1182 patients susceptible to PPCs were included. A robust reduction was observed on the incidence of PPCs in susceptible patients who received sugammadex [RR 0.66; 95% CI (0.54, 0.80), p < 0.01], with a low level of between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 45.98%; H2 = 1.85). Similar protective effects were also proved in avoiding residual neuromuscular block (NMB) [RR 0.25; 95% CI (0.11, 0.56); p < 0.01], atelectasis [RR 0.74; 95% CI (0.59, 0.95); p = 0.02], pneumonia [RR 0.49; 95% CI (0.28, 0.88); p = 0.02], and respiratory failure [RR 0.61; 95% CI (0.39, 0.96); p = 0.03]. No difference was observed regarding adverse events [RR 0.85; 95% CI (0.72, 1.01); p = 0.06].

CONCLUSION

Low to moderate quality of evidence demonstrated the edge of sugammadex over neostigmine for NMB reversal in reducing the likelihood of PPCs and residual NMB in patients with ARISCAT-defined risk factors. Clinicians may reassess the type of reversal agent when treating patients susceptible to PPCs.

Comparison of postoperative nausea and vomiting between Remimazolam and Propofol in Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery: a prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a recently approved, ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine. However, few studies have investigated remimazolam in relation to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study aimed to compare the effects of remimazolam and propofol on PONV in patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery.

METHODS

Patients (n = 206) aged 19-65 years who were scheduled for oral and maxillofacial surgery were randomized into two groups, the remimazolam (R) and propofol group (P). In the R group (n = 94), remimazolam was used to induce anesthesia at 12 mg/kg/h and to maintain anesthesia at 1-2 mg/kg/h. In the P group (n = 95), anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol (target effect-site concentration: 3-5 µg/ml). In both groups, remifentanil was administered at a target effect-site concentration of 2.5-4 ng/ml. The primary outcome was the overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the severity of nausea, use of rescue antiemetics, severity of postoperative pain, use of rescue analgesia, and quality of recovery.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 11.7% and 10.5% in the R group and P group, respectively, and there was no significant difference in the severity of nausea (P > 0.05). Ten patients in the R group and ten patients in the P group required rescue antiemetics during the first 24 h after surgery (P = 0.98). No inter-group differences were observed in terms of postoperative pain score, use of rescue analgesia, and quality of recovery (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, remimazolam did not increase the incidence and severity of PONV compared with propofol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

KCT0006965, Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea. Registration date: 26/01/2022.

Sugammadex versus neostigmine for neuromuscular blockade reversal in outpatient surgeries: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate efficacy and associated healthcare cost in an academic center

Introduction

Neuromuscular blockade is an essential component of the general anesthesia as it allows for a better airway management and optimal surgical conditions. Despite significant reductions in extubation and OR readiness-for-discharge times have been associated with the use of sugammadex, the cost-effectiveness of this drug remains controversial. We aimed to compare the time to reach a train-of-four (TOF) response of ≥0.9 and operating room readiness for discharge in patients who received sugammadex for moderate neuromuscular blockade reversal when compared to neostigmine during outpatient surgeries under general anesthesia. Potential reduction in time for OR discharge readiness as a result of sugammadex use may compensate for the existing cost-gap between sugammadex and neostigmine.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, randomized, double arm, open-label, prospective clinical trial involving adult patients undergoing outpatient surgeries under general anesthesia. Eligible subjects were randomized (1:1 ratio) into two groups to receive either sugammadex (Groups S), or neostigmine/glycopyrrolate (Group N) at the time of neuromuscular blockade reversal. The primary outcome was the time to reverse moderate rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade (TOF ratio ≥0.9) in both groups. In addition, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU)/hospital length of stay (LOS) and perioperative costs were compared among groups as secondary outcomes.

Results

Thirty-seven subjects were included in our statistical analysis (Group S= 18 subjects and Group N= 19 subjects). The median time to reach a TOF ratio ≥0.9 was significantly reduced in Group S when compared to Group N (180 versus 540 seconds; p = 0.0052). PACU and hospital LOS were comparable among groups. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was the main adverse effect reported in Group S (22.2% versus 5.3% in Group N; p = 0.18), while urinary retention (10.5%) and shortness of breath (5.3%) were only experienced by some patients in Group N. Moreover, no statistical differences were found between groups regarding OR/anesthesia, PACU, and total admission costs.

Discussion

Sugammadex use was associated with a significantly faster moderate neuromuscular blockade reversal. We found no evidence of increased perioperative costs associated with the use of sugammadex in patients undergoing outpatient surgeries in our academic institution.

Clinical trial registration

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/] identifier number [NCT03579589].

Optimizing Reversal of Neuromuscular Block in Older Adults: Sugammadex or Neostigmine

Residual neuromuscular paralysis, the presence of clinically significant weakness after administration of pharmacologic neuromuscular blockade reversal, is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications and is more common in older patients. In contemporary anesthesia practice, reversal of neuromuscular blockade is accomplished with neostigmine or sugammadex. Neostigmine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, increases the concentration of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction, providing competitive antagonism of neuromuscular blocking drug and facilitating muscle contraction. Sugammadex, a modified gamma-cyclodextrin, antagonizes neuromuscular blockade by encapsulating rocuronium and vecuronium in a one-to-one ratio for renal clearance, a pharmacokinetic property that led to the recommendation that sugammadex not be administered to those with end-stage renal disease. While data are limited, reports suggest sugammadex is efficacious and well tolerated in individuals with reduced renal function. Sugammadex provides a more rapid and complete reversal of neuromuscular blockade than neostigmine. There is also accumulating evidence that sugammadex may provide a protective effect against the development of postoperative pulmonary complications, nausea, and vomiting, and that it may have beneficial effects on the rate of bowel and bladder recovery after surgery. Accordingly, sugammadex administration is beneficial for most older patients undergoing surgery.

Comparison of the Effects of Sugammadex, Neostigmine, and Pyridostigmine on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Propensity Matched Study of Five Hospitals

Thus far, few studies have compared the effects of sugammadex and cholinesterase inhibitors on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and the results have been controversial. Here, we compared the effects of sugammadex, neostigmine, and pyridostigmine on PONV by means of a five hospital analysis with propensity score matching. We analyzed adults aged ≥ 18 years who underwent general anesthesia between January 2014 and December 2019. Following propensity score matching, 7793 patients were included in each of the neostigmine and sugammadex matched patient groups (absolute standardized difference (ASD), 0.01–0.07), and 10,197 patients were included in each of the pyridostigmine and sugammadex matched patient groups (ASD, 0.01–0.02), while 19,377 patients were included in each of the pyridostigmine and neostigmine matched patient groups. (ASD, 0.01–0.19). The odds of PONV were low in the sugammadex group (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–0.72; p < 0.0001) and pyridostigmine group (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.20–0.24; p < 0.0001) compared to the neostigmine group, while there was no difference between sugammadex and pyridostigmine (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.86–1.04; p = 0.281). Therefore, sugammadex and pyridostigmine may lower the incidence of PONV compared to neostigmine in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Comparison of the Effects of Neostigmine and Sugammadex on Colonic Anastomotic Strength in Rats

BACKGROUND

After colorectal surgery, anastomotic leakage is a major cause of mortality and morbidity. There are many factors affecting anastomotic leakage. It is known that agents such as neostigmine that is used to reverse neuromuscular blockade have certain effects on anastomosis. In our study, in which we planned to test this hypothesis, we aimed to compare the possible effects of different doses of sugammadex and neostigmine on colon anastomosis strength in a colonic resection anastomosis model in rats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty adult Wistar albino male rats were divided into five groups as control (group C), Sugammadex 16 mg/kg (group SL), sugammadex 96 mg/kg (group SH), neostigmine 0.3 μmol/kg (group NL), and neostigmine 1.5 μmol/kg (group NH). The transverse colons of all rats were resected, and colonic anastomosis was performed. Appropriate drug doses according to the groups were given on the postoperative seventh day, and tissue hydroxyproline (TH) level and anastomotic bursting pressure were measured.

RESULTS

Anastomotic bursting pressure values were statistically significantly different between the groups (P = 0.001). The bursting pressure in group SH was significantly higher compared with group C, group NL, and group NH. The hydroxyproline values were statistically significantly different between the groups (P = 0.015). According to the post hoc test results, the difference was between group SH and group C (P = 0.007). There were no significant differences between the other groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in terms of intra-abdominal adhesion rates between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, we found that low and high doses of neostigmine had no variable effect on anastomosis, but high dose of sugammadex (96 mg/kg) had an increasing effect on intestinal anastomosis strength.

Recovery from Anesthesia after Robotic-Assisted Radical Cystectomy: Two Different Reversals of Neuromuscular Blockade

During robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC), specific surgical conditions (a steep Trendelenburg position, prolonged pneumoperitoneum, effective myoresolution until the final stages of surgery) can seriously impair the outcomes. The aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and ileus and the quality of cognitive function at the awakening in two groups of patients undergoing different reversals. In this randomized trial, patients that were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) ≤III candidates for RARC for bladder cancer were randomized into two groups: In the sugammadex (S) group, patients received 2 mg/kg of sugammadex as reversal of neuromuscolar blockade; in the neostigmine (N) group, antagonization was obtained with neostigmine 0.04 mg/kg + atropine 0.02 mg/kg. PONV was evaluated at 30 min, 6 and 24 h after anesthesia. Postoperative cognitive functions and time to resumption of intestinal transit were also investigated. A total of 109 patients were analyzed (54 in the S group and 55 in the N group). The incidence of early PONV was lower in the S group but not statistically significant (S group 25.9% vs. N group 29%; p = 0.711). The Mini-Mental State test mean value was higher in the S group vs. the N group (1 h after surgery: 29.3 (29; 30) vs. 27.6 (27; 30), p = 0.007; 4 h after surgery: 29.5 (30; 30) vs. 28.4 (28; 30), p = 0.05). We did not observe a significant decrease of the PONV after sugammadex administration versus neostigmine use. The Mini-Mental State test mean value was greater in the S group.