Neuromuscular monitoring: Old issues, new controversies

Is there an interaction between dexamethasone and sugammadex in real clinical conditions? A randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background and Aims

There is evidence that sugammadex can encapsulate other substances except rocuronium, such as dexamethasone. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible clinical interaction between dexamethasone and sugammadex, in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Material and Methods

This was a randomized, double-blind controlled trial, performed in patients aged 18-75 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III, who underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy under deep neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium. Patients received 5 mg of dexamethasone or placebo (N/S 0.9%) during induction of anesthesia. Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was administered at the end of surgery at post-tetanic count 1-2. The outcome measures assessed were the time from sugammadex administration until train-of-four (TOF) 0.9, and until patient's extubation, postoperative pain (measured by numeric rating scale 0-10), nausea and vomiting, as well as rescue analgesics and antiemetics required during the first 24 hours postoperatively. The total dose of rocuronium required in both groups was also recorded.

Results

Overall, 44 patients were studied. No difference was detected regarding the demographic and surgical characteristics of patients. The time from sugammadex administration until TOF 0.9 and until patients' extubation did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.21 and 0.17). Operating conditions, pain scores, nausea/vomiting, and rescue analgesics and antiemetics during the first 24 hours postoperatively, did not differ between the groups. The total dose of rocuronium, however, was significantly more in patients who received dexamethasone (P = 0.01).

Conclusion

No significant clinical interaction was revealed between dexamethasone and sugammadex during reversal of deep neuromuscular blockade in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Is deep neuromuscular blockade beneficial in laparoscopic surgery? Yes, probably

BACKGROUND

Deep neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic surgery may provide some clinical benefit. We present the 'Pro-' argument in this paired position paper.

METHODS

We reviewed recent evidence from a basic database of references which we agreed on with the 'Con-' side, and present this in narrative form. We have shared our analysis and text with the authors of the 'Con-' side of these paired position papers during the preparation of the manuscripts.

RESULTS

There are a few low risk of bias studies indicating that use of deep neuromuscular blockade improve surgical conditions and improve patient outcomes such as post-operative pain in laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSION

Our interpretation of recent findings is that there is reason to believe that there may be some patient benefit of deep neuromuscular blockade in this context, and more detailed study is needed.

A miracle that accelerates operating room functionality: sugammadex

Background. Sugammadex offers a good alternative to the conventional decurarisation process currently performed with cholinesterase inhibitors. Sugammadex, which was developed specifically for the aminosteroid-structured rocuronium and vecuronium neuromuscular blockers, is a modified cyclodextrin made up of 8 glucose monomers arranged in a cylindrical shape. Methods. In this study, the goal was to investigate the efficacy of sugammadex. Sugammadex was used when there was insufficient decurarisation following neostigmine. This study was performed on 14 patients who experienced insufficient decurarisation (TOF <0.9) with neostigmine after general anaesthesia in the operating rooms of a university and a state hospital between June, 2012, and January, 2014. A dose of 2 mg/kg of sugammadex was administered. Results. Time elapsed until sugammadex administration following neostigmine 37 ± 6 min, following sugammadex it took 2.1 ± 0.9 min to reach TOF ≥0.9, and the extubation time was 3.2 ± 1.4 min. No statistically significant differences were detected in the hemodynamic parameters before and after sugammadex application. From the time of administration of sugammadex to the second postoperative hour, no side effects or complications occurred. None of the patients experienced acute respiratory failure or residual block during this time period. Conclusion. Sugammadex was successfully used to reverse rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block in patients where neostigmine was insufficient.

Rocuronium antagonized by sugammadex for series of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in a patient with pseudocholinesterase deficiency

We report the anesthetic management of a patient with catatonic schizophrenia and pseudocholinesterase deficiency, using the nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking drug, rocuronium, reversed by its specific reversal agent, sugammadex, for a series of electroconvulsive therapy sessions. Rocuronium and sugammadex were used every 48 hours for 8 consecutive times and proved to be an effective and safe combination in a situation where succinylcholine was contraindicated.

The duration of residual neuromuscular block after administration of neostigmine or sugammadex at two visible twitches during train-of-four monitoring

BACKGROUND

Adequate recovery from neuromuscular block (NMB) is imperative for the patient to have full control of pharyngeal and respiratory muscles. The train-of-4 (TOF) ratio should return to at least 0.90 to exclude potentially clinically significant postoperative residual block. Fade cannot be detected reliably with a peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) at a TOF ratio >0.4. The time gap between loss of visual fade by using a PNS until objective TOF ratio has returned to >0.90 can be considered "the potentially unsafe period of recovery." According to our hypothesis the duration of this period would be significantly shorter with sugammadex than with neostigmine.

METHODS

Fifty patients received volatile anesthetics, opioids, and a rocuronium-induced NMB. TOF-Watch without a preload was used, but the anesthesiologist relied on visual evaluation of the TOF responses only. At end of operation, patients were randomized to receive either neostigmine 50 μg/kg or sugammadex 2 mg/kg, when 2 twitch responses were detected after the last dose of rocuronium. Timing of tracheal extubation was based on PNS and clinical data. Duration of the potentially unsafe period of recovery after reversal by either neostigmine or sugammadex was analyzed. Mann-Whitney U test and Pearson χ(2) test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The times [mean ± sd (range)] from loss of visual fade to TOF ratio >0.90 were 10.3 ± 5.5 (1.3 to 26.0) minutes and 0.3 ± 0.3 (0.0 to 1.0) minutes in the neostigmine and sugammadex groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The times from reversal by neostigmine or sugammadex to TOF ratio >0.90 were 13.3 ± 5.7 (3.5 to 28.9) and 1.7 ± 0.7 (0.7 to 3.5) minutes, respectively (P < 0.001). The values of TOF ratios at the time of loss of visual fade were 0.34 ± 0.14 (0.00 to 0.56) in patients given neostigmine and 0.86 ± 0.11 (0.64 to 1.04) in patients given sugammadex (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant time gap between visual loss of fade and return of TOF ratio >0.90 after reversal of a rocuronium block by neostigmine. Sugammadex in comparison with neostigmine allows a safer reversal of a moderate NMB when relying on visual evaluation of the TOF response.