Sugammadex Reduces Postoperative Pain After Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: A Randomized Trial

Comparison of Different Weight Scalars to Dose Sugammadex for the Reversal of Neuromuscular Blockade in Morbidly Obese Patients: A Systematic Review

This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the optimal weight scalar to dose sugammadex in a morbidly obese (MO) patient population (BMI≥40 kg/m2). The primary outcome was recovery time from moderate neuromuscular blockade (NMB) or deep NMB. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation and incidence of postoperative residual curarization (PORC). Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 645 participants were included. The different dose scalars included were total body weight (TBW), ideal body weight (IBW), 20% corrected body weight (CBW) and 40% CBW). A dose of 2 mg/kg of sugammadex based on 40% CBW and a 4 mg/kg dose of sugammadex based on 40% CBW provide a reliable and timely reversal of moderate and deep NMB respectively in the MO patients.

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.

Enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery: an Italian consensus statement

Background

Enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery (ERABS) is an approach developed to improve outcomes in obese surgical patients. Unfortunately, it is not evenly implemented in Italy. The Italian Society for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Diseases and the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care joined in drafting an official statement on ERABS.

Methods

To assess the effectiveness and safety of ERABS and to develop evidence-based recommendations with regard to pre-, intra-, and post-operative care for obese patients undergoing ERABS, a 13-member expert task force of surgeons and anesthesiologists from Italian certified IFSO center of excellence in bariatric surgery was established and a review of English-language papers conducted. Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Grade Definitions were used to grade the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations, respectively. The supporting evidence and recommendations were reviewed and discussed by the entire group at meetings to achieve a final consensus.

Results

Compared to the conventional approach, ERABS reduces the length of hospital stay and does not heighten the risk of major post-operative complications, re-operations, and hospital re-admissions, nor does it increase the overall surgical costs. A total of 25 recommendations were proposed, covering pre-operative evaluation and care (7 items), intra-operative management (1 item, 11 sub-items), and post-operative care and discharge (6 items).

Conclusions

ERABS is an effective and safe approach. The recommendations allow the proper management of obese patients undergoing ERABS for a better outcome.

Efficacy and Safety of Sugammadex versus Neostigmine in Reversing Neuromuscular Blockade in Morbidly Obese Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Context:

Sugammadex is known to reverse neuromuscular blockade (NMB) more rapidly and reliably than neostigmine. However, data remain limited in bariatric patients. In this review, we systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing NMB in morbidly obese (MO) patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Aims:

Our primary objective was to determine the recovery time from drug administration to a train-of-four (TOF) ratio >0.9 from a moderate or deep NMB.

Settings and Design:

This systematic review and meta-analysis (SR and MA) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Items for SRs and MAs guidelines.

Subjects and Methods:

A systematic search was conducted within multiple databases for studies that compared sugammadex and neostigmine in MO patients.

Statistical Analysis Used:

We reported data as mean difference (MD) or odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects models. A two-sided P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Seven studies with 386 participants met the inclusion criteria. Sugammadex significantly reduced the time of reversal of moderate NMB-to-TOF ratio >0.9 compared to neostigmine, with a mean time of 2.5 min (standard deviation [SD] 1.25) versus 18.2 min (SD 17.6), respectively (MD: −14.52; 95% CI: −20.08, −8.96; P < 0.00001; I² = 96%). The number of patients who had composite adverse events was significantly lower with sugammadex (21.2% of patients) compared to neostigmine (52.5% of patients) (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07–0.32; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%).

Conclusions:

Sugammadex reverses NMB more rapidly with fewer adverse events than neostigmine in MO patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Efficacy and Safety of Neuromuscular Blockade in Overweight Patients Undergoing Nasopharyngeal Surgery

BACKGROUND Adequate muscle relaxation and rapid recovery of neuromuscular function are essential in the perioperative period. We therefore compared various anesthetic regimens of neuromuscular blockers and antagonists administered to overweight patients undergoing nasopharyngeal surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted in overweight patients undergoing nasopharyngeal surgery. We randomly assigned 102 patients into 3 groups (each n=34) treated with various muscle relaxant agents and antagonists: rocuronium and sugammadex (Group RS), rocuronium and neostigmine (Group RN), and cisatracurium and neostigmine (Group CN). Then, we compared the efficacy and safety indexes of the 3 groups. RESULTS Onset times of muscular relaxation in Group RS and Group RN (110 s and 120 s) were shorter than in Group CN (183 s). Time from administration of antagonist to recovery of the TOF ratio to 0.9 was shorter in Group RS (3.3 min) than in other groups (20.7 min and 19.1 min, respectively). The incidence of postoperative residual curarization (PORC) was significantly lower in Group RS (5.9%) than in the other 2 groups (both 41.2%). The hemodynamic parameter changes before extubation were significantly higher in Group RN and Group CN than in Group RS. The postoperative pain scores were lowest in Group RS. CONCLUSIONS For overweight patients undergoing nasopharyngeal surgery, the use of rocuronium with sugammadex had the shortest onset time of neuromuscular relaxation, accelerated the reversion of neuromuscular blockade, effectively reduced the occurrence of PORC, relieved postoperative pain, and maintained hemodynamic stability before extubation. The combination of rocuronium and sugammadex may be the best anesthetic regimen for overweight patients undergoing nasopharyngeal surgery.

Is the amount of carbon dioxide gas used in urologic laparoscopic surgeries associated with postoperative pain?

Purpose

We measured how much CO₂ gas was used in urologic laparoscopic surgeries and studied whether the amount of gas was associated with postoperative pain.

Materials and Methods

Four hundred sixty-three patients underwent urologic laparoscopic surgeries by a single surgeon. All surgeries were performed by a transperitoneal approach under a 15-mm Hg pneumoperitoneum using CO₂ gas. The amount of CO₂ was measured. Neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium was performed during the surgery and patient-controlled analgesia was also applied. Postoperative pain was assessed four times for 24 hours using a 10-point visual analogue scale.

Results

The mean laparoscopic time was 75.65±38.19 minutes and the mean amount of CO₂ gas used was 415.70±190.68 L. The mean score on the postoperative pain scale was 6.37±1.48 for 12 hours (sum of measurements taken at 6 and 12 hours after the surgery) and 11.72±2.46 for 24 hours (sum of measurements at 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours). In the statistical analysis, there were no correlations between the amount of CO₂ used and pain scores for 12 and 24 hours postoperatively. There were no correlations between laparoscopic time and pain scores for 12 or 24 hours postoperatively. There were also no correlations between operative method and pain scores for 12 or 24 hours postoperatively.

Conclusions

We recorded the amount of CO₂ gas used for each laparoscopic surgery. There was no correlation between the amount of CO₂ used and postoperative pain. The lack of correlation may have been because the surgery was performed under anesthesia with deep neuromuscular blockade.

The effect of neuromuscular reversal agent on postoperative pain after laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery: Comparison between the neostigmine and sugammadex

Use of sugammadex for neuromuscular block reversal is associated with fewer postoperative complications than neostigmine; however, the effects on postoperative pain outcomes are largely unknown. In this retrospective study, we investigated the relationship between neuromuscular reversal agents and postoperative pain-related outcomes following laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery.We reviewed the electronic health records of patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery between January 2010 and June 2017. Patients were divided into a sugammadex group and a neostigmine group, according to the neuromuscular block reversal agent used. We compared the pain outcomes in the first 3 days postoperatively (POD 0-3), length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥II).During the study period, 3056 patients received sugammadex (n = 901) or neostigmine (n = 2155) for neuromuscular reversal. After propensity score matching, 1478 patients (739 in each group) were included in regression analysis. In linear regression analysis, intravenous morphine equivalent consumption (mg) during POD 0 to 3 was higher in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group [coefficient 103.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 77.45-129.37; P <.001]. However, hospital stay was shorter (coefficient: -0.60, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.08; P = .025) and postoperative complication rate was lower (odds ratio: 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.58; P = .003) in the sugammadex group.In this retrospective study, patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery who received sugammadex for neuromuscular block reversal exhibited greater postoperative analgesic requirements than those who received neostigmine but had a shorter hospital stay and a lower postoperative complication rate. A randomized and blinded study should be conducted in the future to confirm the findings of the present study.

Comparison of oncological benefits of deep neuromuscular block in obese patients with gastric cancer (DEBLOQS_GC study): A study protocol for a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Many studies have demonstrated the advantage of maintaining intraoperative deep neuromuscular block (NMB) with sugammadex. This trial is designed to evaluate the impact of muscle relaxation during laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy on the oncological benefits, particularly in obese patients with gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a double-blind, randomized controlled multicenter prospective trial. Patients with clinical stage I-II gastric cancer with a body mass index of 25 and over, who undergo laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy will be eligible for trial inclusion. The patients will be randomized into a deep NMB group or a moderate NMB group with a 1:1 ratio. A total of 196 patients (98 per group) are required. The primary endpoint is the number of harvested lymph nodes, which is a critical index of the quality of surgery in gastric cancer treatment. The secondary endpoints are surgeon's surgical condition score, patient's sedation score, and surgical outcomes including peak inspiratory pressure, operation time, postoperative pain, and morbidity.

DISCUSSION

This is the first study that compares deep NMB with moderate NMB during laparoscopic gastrectomy in obese patients with gastric cancer. We hope to show the oncologic benefits of deep NMB compared with moderate NMB during subtotal gastrectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03196791), date of registration: October 10, 2017.

Recovery characteristics of patients receiving either sugammadex or neostigmine and glycopyrrolate for reversal of neuromuscular block: a randomised controlled trial

Sugammadex more rapidly and reliably reverses rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block compared with neostigmine, but it is not known if subsequent patient outcomes, including nausea, vomiting and other aspects of recovery are modified. In this study, we compared the recovery characteristics of sugammadex and neostigmine/glycopyrrolate following reversal of neuromuscular block. This was a single-centre, randomised, blinded, parallel-group clinical trial in women undergoing elective day-surgical laparoscopic gynaecological surgery, with a standardised general anaesthesia regimen that included rocuronium. Neuromuscular block was reversed with either sugammadex 2 mg.kg^-1 or neostigmine 40 μg.kg^-1 and glycopyrrolate 400 μg. The primary outcome was the incidence of nausea and vomiting during the first six postoperative hours. Secondary outcomes included other measures of postoperative recovery such as patient symptoms and recovery scores. Three-hundred and four women were analysed by intention-to-treat (sugammadex n = 151, neostigmine n = 153), which included four major protocol violations. There was no significant difference between sugammadex and neostigmine groups in the incidence of early nausea and vomiting (49.0% vs. 51.0%, respectively; OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.59-1.45; p = 0.731). Double vision (11.5% vs. 20.0%; p = 0.044) and dry mouth (71.6% vs. 85.5%; p = 0.003) were less common after sugammadex. Sedation scores at 2 h were also lower after sugammadex (median (IQR [range]) 0 (0-3 [0-10]) vs. 2 (0-4.[0-10]); p = 0.021). Twenty-four-hour recovery scores were not significantly different between groups. Reversal with sugammadex in this patient population did not reduce postoperative nausea or vomiting compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate.

Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults

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).

Effects of sugammadex vs. pyridostigmine-glycopyrrolate on post-operative nausea and vomiting: propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Sugammadex is a new agent that reverses neuromuscular blockade by aminosteroid neuromuscular blocker. This retrospective study compared the effects of sugammadex on post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with those of a pyridostigmine-glycopyrrolate mixture.

METHODS

We reviewed the electronic medical records of 7179 patients who had received fentanyl-based, intravenous, patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) at Chung-Ang University Hospital between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015. We categorized the patients into two groups on the basis of the type of reversal agent to neuromuscular blockade that was used: a traditional reversal agent (pyridostigmine-glycopyrrolate mixture; Group R; n = 7059) and sugammadex (Group S; n = 120). The propensity score matching method was then used to select 408 subjects in Group R and 115 subjects in Group S; on the basis of their covariates, these subjects were then matched with a counterpart in the other group.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, the two groups were well balanced with respect to all baseline covariates. In Group S, the numeric rating scale of nausea on day 0, as well as the number of patients who vomited on day 0, was lower than that in group R. Furthermore, Group S used fewer rescue antiemetics on day 0 and had a higher complete response on day 0.

CONCLUSION

Sugammadex might be more beneficial for PONV compared to pyridostigmine-glycopyrrolate mixture for patients who have received opioid-based IV-PCA.

Deep Neuromuscular Block Improves Surgical Conditions during Bariatric Surgery and Reduces Postoperative Pain: A Randomized Double Blind Controlled Trial

Background

It remains unknown whether the administration of a deep neuromuscular block (NMB) during bariatric surgery improves surgical conditions and patient outcome. The authors studied the effect of deep versus moderate NMB in laparoscopic bariatric surgery on surgical conditions and postoperative pain.

Methods and Results

One hundred patients scheduled to undergo elective bariatric surgery were randomized to a deep NMB (post-tetanic-count 2–3) or a moderate NMB (train-of-four 1–2). The quality of the surgical field was scored using the Leiden-Surgical Rating Scale (L-SRS), a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely poor conditions) to 5 (optimal conditions). Three surgeons scored the L-SRS at 10-min intervals during surgery; postoperative pain scores were obtained in the postanesthesia-care-unit (PACU) and on the ward. Mean (95% confidence interval) L-SRS scores in moderate NMB 4.2 (4.0–4.4) versus 4.8 (4.7–4.9) in deep NMB (p < 0.001). Moderate NMB resulted in 17% of scores at L-SRS scores of 1–3, while deep NMB resulted in 100% scores at the high end of the L-SRS (4–5). Deep NMB led to improved pain scores in the PACU (4.6 (4.2–4.9) versus 3.9 (3.6–4.4), p = 0.03) and reduced shoulder pain on the ward (1.8 (1.5–2.1) versus 1.3 (1.1–1.5), p = 0.03). A composite score of pain and opioid use in the PACU favoured deep NMB (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

In bariatric surgery, deep relaxation has advantages for surgeon and patient. Compared to moderate NMB, deep NMB produced stable and improved surgical conditions with less postoperative pain.

A systematic review of sugammadex vs neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade

We reviewed systematically sugammadex vs neostigmine for reversing neuromuscular blockade. We included 17 randomised controlled trials with 1553 participants. Sugammadex reduced all signs of residual postoperative paralysis, relative risk (95% CI) 0.46 (0.29-0.71), p = 0.0004 and minor respiratory events, relative risk (95% CI) 0.51 (0.32-0.80), p = 0.0034. There was no difference in critical respiratory events, relative risk (95% CI) 0.13 (0.02-1.06), p = 0.06. Sugammadex reduced drug-related side-effects, relative risk (95% CI) 0.72 (0.54-0.95), p = 0.02. There was no difference in the rate of postoperative nausea or the rate of postoperative vomiting, relative risk (95% CI) 0.94 (0.79-1.13), p = 0.53, and 0.87 (0.65-1.17), p = 0.36 respectively.

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.