1
|
Maqusood S, Bele A, Verma N, Dash S, Bawiskar D. Sugammadex vs Neostigmine, a Comparison in Reversing Neuromuscular Blockade: A Narrative Review. Cureus 2024; 16:e65656. [PMID: 39205735 PMCID: PMC11352768 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.65656] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2024] [Accepted: 07/29/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024] Open
Abstract
The use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) has grown due to the development of laparoscopic and minimally invasive procedures. Respiratory insufficiency, an elevated risk of aspiration, postoperative pulmonary complications, and subsequent reintubation are among the risks linked to the residual block. The normal clinical practice calls for the pharmacologic "reversal" of these agents with either sugammadex or neostigmine prior to extubation. The administration of neostigmine is linked to a number of potential complications. In response, anaesthesiologists have begun to prescribe sugammadex more frequently for treating residual block and reversing blockade with NMBA. This review article compares and assesses neostigmine and sugammadex thoroughly in order to determine the extent to which they work as agents to reverse neuromuscular blockade. The review's findings highlight sugammadex's considerable advantages - Sugammadex's ability to quickly and reliably achieve desired train-of-four (TOF) ratios - over neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in a variety of surgical settings. In contrast, neostigmine's limitations regarding efficacy and rate of reversal were consistently noted in all of the reviewed studies, despite the fact that it is still widely used due to its lower cost and extensive clinical experience. Sugammadex is a superior option for reversing neuromuscular blockade, but incorporating it into standard clinical practice necessitates carefully weighing its potential benefits and drawbacks. Sugammadex provides notable benefits over neostigmine in terms of speed, predictability, and safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shafaque Maqusood
- Anaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
| | - Amol Bele
- Anaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
| | - Neeta Verma
- Anaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
| | - Sambit Dash
- Anaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
| | - Dushyant Bawiskar
- Sports Medicine, Abhinav Bindra Targeting Performance, Bangalore, IND
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kim JH, Kim M, Oh M, Lee SK, Kwon YS. Effect of sugammadex on postoperative complications in patients with severe burn who underwent surgery: a retrospective study. Sci Rep 2024; 14:525. [PMID: 38177213 PMCID: PMC10767056 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-51171-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 01/01/2024] [Indexed: 01/06/2024] Open
Abstract
This retrospective study investigated the association of sugammadex with postoperative pulmonary complication risk between 2013 and 2021 in patients with severe burn of five hospitals. Postoperative pulmonary complications included atelectasis, pulmonary edema, pulmonary effusion, pneumothorax, pneumonia, pulmonary thromboembolism, respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress. To identify whether sugammadex reduced the risk of postoperative pulmonary complication in patients with severe burn who underwent surgery, Kaplan-Meier curve were used to check the difference of incidence according to surgical cases and time-varying Cox hazard regression were used to calculate the hazard ratio. The study included 1213 patients with severe burn who underwent 2259 surgeries. Postoperative pulmonary complications were occurred in 313 (25.8%) patients. Among 2259 surgeries, sugammadex was used in 649 (28.7%) surgeries. Cumulative postoperative pulmonary complication were 268 (16.6%) cases in surgeries without sugammadex, and 45 (6.9%) cases in surgeries with sugammadex, respectively (P < 0.005). The postoperative pulmonary complications risk was reduced significantly in patients who use sugammadex than those who did not use sugammadex. (Adjusted hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.89; P = 0.011). In conclusion, sugammadex reduced risk of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with nonuse of sugammadex in patients with severe burn who underwent surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jong Ho Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University, 77 Sakju-ro, Chuncheon, 24253, South Korea
- Institute of New Frontier Research Team, Hallym University, Chuncheon, South Korea
| | - Minguan Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University, 77 Sakju-ro, Chuncheon, 24253, South Korea
| | - Minho Oh
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University, Anyang, Republic of Korea
| | - Soo-Kyung Lee
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University, Anyang, Republic of Korea
| | - Young Suk Kwon
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University, 77 Sakju-ro, Chuncheon, 24253, South Korea.
- Institute of New Frontier Research Team, Hallym University, Chuncheon, South Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bai YX, Han JJ, Liu J, Li X, Xu ZZ, Lv Y, Liu KX, Wu QP. Sugammadex Reduced the Incidence of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Susceptible Patients Identified by ARISCAT Risk Index: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Adv Ther 2023; 40:3784-3803. [PMID: 37351811 DOI: 10.1007/s12325-023-02535-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2023] [Accepted: 04/27/2023] [Indexed: 06/24/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yun-Xiao Bai
- Department of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China
| | - Jing-Jing Han
- Department of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China
| | - Jie Liu
- Department of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China
| | - Xia Li
- Department of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China
| | - Zhen-Zhen Xu
- Department of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China
| | - Yong Lv
- Department of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China
| | - Ke-Xuan Liu
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Qing-Ping Wu
- Department of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Suleiman A, Munoz-Acuna R, Azimaraghi O, Houle TT, Chen G, Rupp S, Witt AS, Azizi BA, Ahrens E, Shay D, Wongtangman K, Wachtendorf LJ, Tartler TM, Eikermann M, Schaefer MS. The effects of sugammadex vs. neostigmine on postoperative respiratory complications and advanced healthcare utilisation: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Anaesthesia 2023; 78:294-302. [PMID: 36562202 DOI: 10.1111/anae.15940] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/28/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Reversing neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex can eliminate residual paralysis, which has been associated with postoperative respiratory complications. There are equivocal data on whether sugammadex reduces these when compared with neostigmine. We investigated the association of the choice of reversal drug with postoperative respiratory complications and advanced healthcare utilisation. We included adult patients who underwent surgery and received general anaesthesia with sugammadex or neostigmine reversal at two academic healthcare networks between January 2016 and June 2021. The primary outcome was postoperative respiratory complications, defined as post-extubation oxygen saturation < 90%, respiratory failure requiring non-invasive ventilation, or tracheal re-intubation within 7 days. Our main secondary outcome was advanced healthcare utilisation, a composite outcome including: 7-day unplanned intensive care unit admission; 30-day hospital readmission; or non-home discharge. In total, 5746 (6.9%) of 83,250 included patients experienced postoperative respiratory complications. This was not associated with the reversal drug (adjusted OR (95%CI) 1.01 (0.94-1.08); p = 0.76). After excluding patients admitted from skilled nursing facilities, 8372 (10.5%) patients required advanced healthcare utilisation, which was not associated with the choice of reversal (adjusted OR (95%CI) 0.95 (0.89-1.01); p = 0.11). Equivalence testing supported an equivalent effect size of sugammadex and neostigmine on both outcomes, and neostigmine was non-inferior to sugammadex with regard to postoperative respiratory complications or advanced healthcare utilisation. Finally, there was no association between the reversal drug and major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted OR 1.07 (0.94-1.21); p = 0.32). Compared with neostigmine, reversal of neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex was not associated with a reduction in postoperative respiratory complications or post-procedural advanced healthcare utilisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Suleiman
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA
| | - R Munoz-Acuna
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA
| | - O Azimaraghi
- Department of Anesthesiology, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, NY, Bronx, USA
| | - T T Houle
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA
| | - G Chen
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA
| | - S Rupp
- Department of Anesthesiology, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, NY, Bronx, USA
| | - A S Witt
- Department of Anesthesiology, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, NY, Bronx, USA
| | - B A Azizi
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA
| | - E Ahrens
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA
| | - D Shay
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, MA, Boston, USA
| | - K Wongtangman
- Department of Anesthesiology, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, NY, Bronx, USA
| | - L J Wachtendorf
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA
| | - T M Tartler
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA
| | - M Eikermann
- Department of Anesthesiology, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, NY, Bronx, USA
| | - M S Schaefer
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MA, Boston, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Thilen SR, Weigel WA, Todd MM, Dutton RP, Lien CA, Grant SA, Szokol JW, Eriksson LI, Yaster M, Grant MD, Agarkar M, Marbella AM, Blanck JF, Domino KB. 2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Monitoring and Antagonism of Neuromuscular Blockade: A Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Neuromuscular Blockade. Anesthesiology 2023; 138:13-41. [PMID: 36520073 DOI: 10.1097/aln.0000000000004379] [Citation(s) in RCA: 96] [Impact Index Per Article: 96.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
These practice guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the management of neuromuscular monitoring and antagonism of neuromuscular blocking agents during and after general anesthesia. The guidance focuses primarily on the type and site of monitoring and the process of antagonizing neuromuscular blockade to reduce residual neuromuscular blockade.
Collapse
|
6
|
Anzai A, Utino A, Tosello G, Katayama H, Spir IAZ, Tristão LS, Nery MM, Anhesini M, Tiezzi OS, Spir PRN, Otani P, Bernado WM. Sugammadex in awakening from general anesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2022; 68:1130-1153. [PMID: 36228244 PMCID: PMC9575014 DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.2022d687] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2022] [Accepted: 04/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Adriano Anzai
- Unimed, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine – Presidente Prudente (SP), Brazil
| | - Armelin Utino
- Unimed, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine – Presidente Prudente (SP), Brazil
| | - Giuliano Tosello
- Unimed, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine – Presidente Prudente (SP), Brazil
| | - Haroldo Katayama
- Unimed, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine – Presidente Prudente (SP), Brazil
| | | | | | - Mary Martins Nery
- Unimed, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine – Presidente Prudente (SP), Brazil
| | - Mauricio Anhesini
- Unimed, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine – Presidente Prudente (SP), Brazil
| | | | | | - Pericles Otani
- Unimed, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine – Presidente Prudente (SP), Brazil
| | - Wanderley Marques Bernado
- Unimed, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine – Presidente Prudente (SP), Brazil.,Corresponding author:
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wang JF, Zhao ZZ, Jiang ZY, Liu HX, Deng XM. Influence of sugammadex versus neostigmine for neuromuscular block reversal on the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Perioper Med (Lond) 2021; 10:32. [PMID: 34538277 PMCID: PMC8451127 DOI: 10.1186/s13741-021-00203-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The influence of sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular block (NMB) on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), compared with neostigmine, remains to be determined. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the incidence of PPCs between patients who received sugammadex versus neostigmine. METHODS Relevant studies were obtained by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. A random effects model incorporating the potential heterogeneity was used to pool the results. RESULTS Fourteen RCTs including 1478 adult patients who underwent surgeries with general anesthesia were included, and of these, 753 received sugammadex and 725 received neostigmine for reversal of NMB. The pooled results showed that sugammadex was associated with a lower risk of overall PPCs compared to neostigmine (odds ratio [OR]: 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.89, p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). This finding remained consistent after exclusion of two studies with potential overlapping events (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.96, p = 0.03; I2=9%). Stratified analyses according to the categories of PPCs showed that sugammadex was associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative respiratory failure (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.38-0.97, p = 0.04; I2 = 0%) but not of postoperative pulmonary infection (OR: 0.79, p = 0.71), atelectasis (OR: 0.78, p = 0.33), or pneumothorax (OR: 0.87, p = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS Compared with neostigmine, the use of sugammadex for reversal of NMB was associated with a lower risk of PPCs, mainly due to a lower incidence of postoperative respiratory failure with the use of sugammadex.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jia-Feng Wang
- Faculty of Anesthesiology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, 168 Changhai Road, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | | | - Zheng-Yu Jiang
- Faculty of Anesthesiology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, 168 Changhai Road, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Hui-Xing Liu
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Peking University People's Hospital, No. 11 Xizhimen South Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100044, China
| | - Xiao-Ming Deng
- Faculty of Anesthesiology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, 168 Changhai Road, Shanghai, 200433, China.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Togioka BM, Yanez D, Aziz MF, Higgins JR, Tekkali P, Treggiari MM. Randomised controlled trial of sugammadex or neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular block on the incidence of pulmonary complications in older adults undergoing prolonged surgery. Br J Anaesth 2020; 124:553-561. [DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.01.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2019] [Revised: 01/26/2020] [Accepted: 01/28/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
|
9
|
Kim YH, Kim HW. Transient corneal depression after open heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. J Card Surg 2018; 33:795-796. [PMID: 30456767 DOI: 10.1111/jocs.13950] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Yong Han Kim
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Hwan-Wook Kim
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Effect of dexmedetomidine on intraocular pressure in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy under total intravenous anesthesia: A randomized, double blinded placebo controlled clinical trial. J Clin Anesth 2018; 49:30-35. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.06.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2018] [Revised: 05/23/2018] [Accepted: 06/01/2018] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
11
|
Hristovska AM, Duch P, Allingstrup M, Afshari A. The comparative efficacy and safety of sugammadex and neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults. A Cochrane systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Anaesthesia 2017; 73:631-641. [DOI: 10.1111/anae.14160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/21/2017] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- A.-M. Hristovska
- Department of Pediatric and Obstetric Anaesthesia; Juliane Marie Centre; Copenhagen University Hospital; Copenhagen Denmark
| | - P. Duch
- Department of Neuroanaesthesia; Juliane Marie Centre; Copenhagen University Hospital; Copenhagen Denmark
| | - M. Allingstrup
- Department of Pediatric and Obstetric Anaesthesia; Juliane Marie Centre; Copenhagen University Hospital; Copenhagen Denmark
| | - A. Afshari
- Department of Pediatric and Obstetric Anaesthesia; Juliane Marie Centre; Copenhagen University Hospital; Copenhagen Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hristovska A, Duch P, Allingstrup M, Afshari A. Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 8:CD012763. [PMID: 28806470 PMCID: PMC6483345 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012763] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, such as neostigmine, have traditionally been used for reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents. However, these drugs have significant limitations, such as indirect mechanisms of reversal, limited and unpredictable efficacy, and undesirable autonomic responses. Sugammadex is a selective relaxant-binding agent specifically developed for rapid reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium. Its potential clinical benefits include fast and predictable reversal of any degree of block, increased patient safety, reduced incidence of residual block on recovery, and more efficient use of healthcare resources. OBJECTIVES The main objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade caused by non-depolarizing neuromuscular agents in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases on 2 May 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (WebSPIRS Ovid SP), Embase (WebSPIRS Ovid SP), and the clinical trials registries www.controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and www.centerwatch.com. We re-ran the search on 10 May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published, or language. We included adults, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I to IV, who received non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents for an elective in-patient or day-case surgical procedure. We included all trials comparing sugammadex versus neostigmine that reported recovery times or adverse events. We included any dose of sugammadex and neostigmine and any time point of study drug administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to identify trials for eligibility, examined articles for eligibility, abstracted data, assessed the articles, and excluded obviously irrelevant reports. We resolved disagreements by discussion between review authors and further disagreements through consultation with the last review author. We assessed risk of bias in 10 methodological domains using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and examined risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. We used the principles of the GRADE approach to prepare an overall assessment of the quality of evidence. For our primary outcomes (recovery times to train-of-four ratio (TOFR) > 0.9), we presented data as mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and for our secondary outcomes (risk of adverse events and risk of serious adverse events), we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with CIs. MAIN RESULTS We included 41 studies (4206 participants) in this updated review, 38 of which were new studies. Twelve trials were eligible for meta-analysis of primary outcomes (n = 949), 28 trials were eligible for meta-analysis of secondary outcomes (n = 2298), and 10 trials (n = 1647) were ineligible for meta-analysis.We compared sugammadex 2 mg/kg and neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg for reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate neuromuscular blockade (NMB). Sugammadex 2 mg/kg was 10.22 minutes (6.6 times) faster then neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (1.96 vs 12.87 minutes) in reversing NMB from the second twitch (T2) to TOFR > 0.9 (MD 10.22 minutes, 95% CI 8.48 to 11.96; I2 = 84%; 10 studies, n = 835; GRADE: moderate quality).We compared sugammadex 4 mg/kg and neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg for reversal of rocuronium-induced deep NMB. Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was 45.78 minutes (16.8 times) faster then neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (2.9 vs 48.8 minutes) in reversing NMB from post-tetanic count (PTC) 1 to 5 to TOFR > 0.9 (MD 45.78 minutes, 95% CI 39.41 to 52.15; I2 = 0%; two studies, n = 114; GRADE: low quality).For our secondary outcomes, we compared sugammadex, any dose, and neostigmine, any dose, looking at risk of adverse and serious adverse events. We found significantly fewer composite adverse events in the sugammadex group compared with the neostigmine group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74; I2 = 40%; 28 studies, n = 2298; GRADE: moderate quality). Risk of adverse events was 28% in the neostigmine group and 16% in the sugammadex group, resulting in a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8. When looking at specific adverse events, we noted significantly less risk of bradycardia (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; I2= 0%; 11 studies, n = 1218; NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 389; NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality) and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57; I2 = 0%; 15 studies, n = 1474; NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) in the sugammadex group when compared with the neostigmine group. Finally, we found no significant differences between sugammadex and neostigmine regarding risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.25; I2= 0%; 10 studies, n = 959; GRADE: low quality).Application of trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicates superiority of sugammadex for outcomes such as recovery time from T2 to TOFR > 0.9, adverse events, and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Review results suggest that in comparison with neostigmine, sugammadex can more rapidly reverse rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block regardless of the depth of the block. Sugammadex 2 mg/kg is 10.22 minutes (˜ 6.6 times) faster in reversing moderate neuromuscular blockade (T2) than neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (GRADE: moderate quality), and sugammadex 4 mg/kg is 45.78 minutes (˜ 16.8 times) faster in reversing deep neuromuscular blockade (PTC 1 to 5) than neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (GRADE: low quality). With an NNTB of 8 to avoid an adverse event, sugammadex appears to have a better safety profile than neostigmine. Patients receiving sugammadex had 40% fewer adverse events compared with those given neostigmine. Specifically, risks of bradycardia (RR 0.16, NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), PONV (RR 0.52, NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality), and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) were reduced. Both sugammadex and neostigmine were associated with serious adverse events in less than 1% of patients, and data showed no differences in risk of serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.54; GRADE: low quality).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ana‐Marija Hristovska
- Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalJuliane Marie Centre ‐ Anaesthesia and Surgical Clinic Department 4013Blegdamsvej 9CopenhagenDenmark2100
| | - Patricia Duch
- Copenhagen University Hospital HvidovreDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care MedicineKettegård Alle 39HvidovreDenmark2650
| | - Mikkel Allingstrup
- Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalJuliane Marie Centre ‐ Anaesthesia and Surgical Clinic Department 4013Blegdamsvej 9CopenhagenDenmark2100
| | - Arash Afshari
- Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalJuliane Marie Centre ‐ Anaesthesia and Surgical Clinic Department 4013Blegdamsvej 9CopenhagenDenmark2100
| | | |
Collapse
|