Postoperative respiratory outcomes in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: comparison of a prospective group of patients whose neuromuscular blockade was reverted with sugammadex and a historical one reverted with neostigmine

Postoperative pulmonary complications after sugammadex reversal of neuromuscular blockade: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Sugammadex has been reported to lower the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade. Despite the advantages, until recently the effects of sugammadex on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) were controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether reversal with sugammadex was associated with a lower risk of PPCs compared with neostigmine.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing PPCs in patients receiving sugammadex or neostigmine as reversal agent at the end of surgery were included. The primary outcomes focused on PPCs including desaturation, pneumonia, atelectasis, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and reintubation. Trial sequential analysis was performed on the primary outcomes to confirm whether firm evidence was reached.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of included studies showed that the rate of desaturation (43.2% vs 45.0%, RR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.05; p = 0.11) were comparable between the two groups. When looking at other primary outcomes, significantly lower risk of pneumonia (1.37% vs 2.45%, RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; p = 0.002), atelectasis (24.6% vs 30.4%, RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.98; p = 0.04), NIV (1.37% vs 2.33%, RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98; p = 0.04) and reintubation (0.99% vs 1.65%, RR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91; p = 0.01) in the sugammadex group were detected compared with the neostigmine group.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that sugammadex is more effective at reducing the incidence of PPCs including pneumonia, atelectasis, NIV and reintubation compared with neostigmine. Further evidence, preferably from RCTs, is required to confirm these findings.

Comparison effects of two muscle relaxant strategies on postoperative pulmonary complications in transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have reported conflicting results on the effect of sugammadex on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) and research on this topic in transapical-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) was sparse. The current study aimed to investigate whether there were differences in the incidence of PPCs between two muscle relaxant strategies (rocuronium/sugammadex vs. cisatracurium/neostigmine) in patients undergoing TA-TAVI.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study enrolled 245 adult patients underwent TA-TAVI between October 2018 and January 2021. The patients were grouped according to the type of muscle relaxant strategies (115 with rocuronium/sugammadex in the R/S group and 130 with cisatracurium/neostigmine in the C/N group, respectively). Pre- and intraoperative variables were managed by propensity score match (PSM) at a 1:2 ratio. PPCs (i.e., respiratory infection, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, atelectasis, respiratory failure, bronchospasm and aspiration pneumonitis) were evaluated from the radiological and laboratory findings.

RESULTS

After PSM, 91 patients in the R/S group were selected and matched to 112 patients in the C/N group. Patients in the R/S group showed lower PPCs rate (45.1% vs. 61.6%, p = 0.019) compared to the C/N group. In addition, the R/S group showed significant shorter extubation time (7.2 ± 6.2 vs. 10.3 ± 8.2 min, p = 0.003) and length of hospital stay (6.9 ± 3.3 vs. 8.0 ± 4.0 days, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

The rocuronium/sugammadex muscle relaxant strategy decreases the incidence of PPCs in patients undergoing TA-TAVI when compared to cisatracurium/neostigmine strategy. Trial registration ChiCTR, ChiCTR2100044269. Registered March 14, 2021-Prospectively registered, http://www.Chictr.org.cn .

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

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.

Choice of neuromuscular block reversal agent to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications

The definition of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) is inconsistent in literature; however, PPCs include pulmonary abnormalities that adversely affect patient outcomes, such as respiratory failure, atelectasis, pneumonia, pleural effusion, and exacerbation of underlying lung conditions. Furthermore, although the incidence of PPCs varies according to its definition, surgery type, and patient population, they can lead to increased morbidity, mortality, duration of hospitalization, and medical costs; thus, efforts to identify and reduce the risk factors are important to improve patient outcomes. Among the risk factors for PPCs, residual neuromuscular block is a representative and preventable anesthesia-related risk factor that is affected by the choice of the reversal agent. However, it is not clear whether the chosen reversal agent, i.e., sugammadex, reduces PPCs better when compared to anticholinesterases. Additionally, the effects of the reversal agents on PPCs in high-risk patients, such as elderly patients, pediatric patients, those with end-stage renal disease, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, or those undergoing specific surgeries, are diverse. To reduce the PPCs associated with the use of neuromuscular blocking agents, it is important to confirm complete reversal of the neuromuscular block under neuromuscular monitoring. Additionally, efforts to reduce the incidence of PPCs through interdisciplinary communication are required.

Recovery of lower oesophageal barrier function: a pilot study comparing a mixture of atropine and neostigmine and sugammadex: A randomised controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

The lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) barrier serves to prevent regurgitation of gastric contents. Although general anaesthesia depresses its function, its recovery process during emergence from anaesthesia has not been systematically examined.

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether recovery of lower oesophageal barrier function differed between patients receiving a mixture of 1 mg atropine and 2 mg neostigmine and those receiving 2 mg kg-1 sugammadex during emergence from anaesthesia.

DESIGN

An unblinded randomised controlled pilot study.

SETTING

A single university hospital from January 2016 to December 2018.

PATIENTS

A total of 20 non-obese adult females undergoing minor surgery.

INTERVENTION

The patients were randomly assigned to a group either receiving atropine and neostigmine or sugammadex for reversal of rocuronium.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Through use of the high-resolution manometry technique, the lower oesophageal barrier pressure (PBAR: primary variable) defined as a pressure difference between pressures at the LOS and the stomach was measured at five distinguishable time points during emergence from total intravenous anaesthesia. A mixed effects model for repeated measures was used to test the hypothesis.

RESULTS

In all patients baseline PBAR values were positive even under muscle paralysis and general anaesthesia before administration of reversal agents, and did not differ between the groups (P = 0.299). During recovery from muscle paralysis and general anaesthesia, PBAR (mean ± SD) significantly increased (P = 0.004) from 17.0 ± 2.9 to 21.0 ± 5.0 mmHg in the atropine and neostigmine group (n = 8) and from 19.1 ± 9.0 to 24.5 ± 12.7 mmHg in the sugammadex group (n = 11). PBAR significantly increased immediately after return of consciousness in both groups, whereas return of muscle tone, lightening of anaesthesia and tracheal extubation did not change it.

CONCLUSION

Recovery of the lower oesophageal barrier function does not differ between patients receiving either atropine and neostigmine or sugammadex and is completed after recovery of consciousness from general anaesthesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000020500: https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr.cgi?function=brows&action=brows&recptno=R000023594&type=summary&language=E.

Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on current scientific evidence. This guideline seeks to address questions regarding the intraoperative care of patients with OSA, including airway management, anesthetic drug and agent effects, and choice of anesthesia type. Given the paucity of high-quality studies with regard to study design and execution in this perioperative field, recommendations were to a large part developed by subject-matter experts through consensus processes, taking into account the current scientific knowledge base and quality of evidence. This guideline may not be suitable for all clinical settings and patients and is not intended to define standards of care or absolute requirements for patient care; thus, assessment of appropriateness should be made on an individualized basis. Adherence to this guideline cannot guarantee successful outcomes, but recommendations should rather aid health care professionals and institutions to formulate plans and develop protocols for the improvement of the perioperative care of patients with OSA, considering patient-related factors, interventions, and resource availability. Given the groundwork of a comprehensive systematic literature review, these recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts at the time of publication. While periodic reevaluations of literature are needed, novel scientific evidence between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from the guideline may be justifiable and should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.

Postoperative complications with neuromuscular blocking drugs and/or reversal agents in obstructive sleep apnea patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBD) are administered intra-operatively to facilitate intubation and to achieve muscle relaxation for surgical procedures. Incomplete reversal of NMBD can lead to adverse events in the postoperative period. Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may be at higher risk of complications related to the use of NMBD. The objectives of this systematic review were to determine whether: 1) OSA patients are at higher risk of postoperative complications from the use of NMBD than non-OSA patients, and 2) the choice of NMBD reversal agent affects the risk of postoperative complications in OSA patients.

METHODS

A literature search of multiple databases was conducted up to April 2017. The inclusion criteria were: (1) adult surgical patients (≥18 years old) with OSA diagnosed by polysomnography, or history, or suspected by screening questionnaire; (2) patients who were given NMBD and/or NMBD reversal agents intraoperatively; (3) reports on postoperative adverse events, particularly respiratory events were available; (4) published studies were in English; and (5) RCTs or observational cohort studies. The quality of evidence was determined by the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine levels of evidence.

RESULTS

Out of 4123 studies, five studies (2 RCTs and 3 observational studies) including 1126 patients were deemed eligible. These studies were heterogeneous precluding a meta-analysis of the results. Two of three studies (1 RCT, 2 observational studies) reported that OSA patients given NMBD may be at higher risk of developing postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) like hypoxemia, residual neuromuscular blockade or respiratory failure compared to non-OSA patients. Two studies (1 RCT, 1 observational study) reported that OSA patients who were reversed with sugammadex vs. neostigmine had less PPCs and chest radiographic changes, but the quality of the included studies was Oxford level of evidence: low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

OSA patients who receive intraoperative NMBD may be at higher risk for postoperative hypoxemia, respiratory failure and residual neuromuscular blockade compared to non-OSA patients. There is some, albeit very limited evidence that NMBD reversal with sugammadex may be associated with less PPCs than neostigmine in patients with OSA. More high-quality studies are needed.

Comparison of postoperative coagulation profiles and outcome for sugammadex versus pyridostigmine in 992 living donors after living-donor hepatectomy

Donor safety is the major concern in living donor liver transplantation, although hepatic resection may be associated with postoperative coagulopathy. Recently, the use of sugammadex has been gradually increased, but sugammadex is known to prolong prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). We compared the postoperative coagulation profiles and outcomes of sugammadex versus pyridostigmine group in donors receiving living donor hepatectomy.Consecutive donor hepatectomy performed between September 2013 and August 2016 was retrospectively analyzed. For reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade, donors received sugammadex 4 mg/kg or pyridostigmine 0.25 mg/kg. The primary end-points were laboratory findings (PT, aPTT, hemoglobin, platelet count) and clinically evaluated postoperative bleeding (relaparotomy for bleeding, cumulative volume collected in drains). Secondary outcomes were anesthesia time, postoperative hospital day.Of 992 donors, 383 treated with sugammadex and 609 treated with pyridostigmine for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade. There were no significant differences between both groups for drop in hemoglobin and platelet, prolongation in PT, aPTT, and the amount of 24-h drain volume. Bleeding events within 24 h were reported in 2 (0.3%) for pyridostigmine group and 0 (0%) for sugammadex group (P = .262). Anesthesia time was significantly longer in pyridostigmine group than that in sugammadex group (438.8 ± 71.4 vs. 421.3 ± 62.3, P < .001). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in pyridostigmine group than that in sugammadex group (P = .002).Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was not associated with increased bleeding tendency, but associated with reduced anesthesia time and hospital stay. Therefore, sugammadex may be safely used and will decrease morbidity in donor undergoing living-donor hepatectomy.

The use of sugammadex for bariatric surgery: analysis of recovery time from neuromuscular blockade and possible economic impact

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular block (NMB) monitoring and use of reversal agents accelerate the recovery time and improve the workflow in the operating room. We aimed to compare recovery times after sugammadex or neostigmine administration, and estimate the time spent in operating theater and the possible economic impact of a faster recovery, in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study that analyzed data from records of morbidly obese patients (body mass index >40 kg/m(2)) undergoing elective laparoscopic bariatric surgery in which sugammadex or neostigmine were used to reverse NMB. Patients were divided in two groups: group 1 (sugammadex group [SUG]) received rocuronium and sugammadex for reversal and group 2 (neostigmine group [NEO]) received either rocuronium or cisatracurium and neostigmine. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation).

RESULTS

Compared with NEO, SUG group showed shorter times to achieve train-of-four ratio of 0.9 (P<0.05) and an Aldrete score of 10 (P<0.05), a higher cost (€146.7 vs €3.6 [P<0.05]), plus a remarkable less duration of operating theater occupancy (P<0.05). Sugammadex cost accounted for 2.58% of the total cost per surgery, while neostigmine cost accounted for 0.06%. Total time saved in SUG group was 19.4 hours, which could be used to perform 12 extra laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies.

CONCLUSION

Reversal from NMB was significantly faster with sugammadex than with neostigmine. Although sugammadex was substantially more expensive, duration of operating theater occupancy was reduced with potentially workflow increase or personnel reduced cost.

Sugammadex: What do we Know and What do we Still Need to Know? A Review of the Recent (2013 to 2014) Literature

Since its launch in 2008, sugammadex has been considered one of the most significant developments in anaesthesia-related pharmacology. With almost 500 sugammadex-related publications and over nine million patient exposures worldwide, user experience and scientific data have grown exponentially. However, several important questions are yet to be answered. This article reviews the sugammadex-related literature in 2013 and 2014 to determine which of these questions have been answered more fully over the last 18 months and which questions require more information and research.