A survey of current management of neuromuscular block and reversal in Australia and New Zealand

The effect of sugammadex on patient morbidity and quality of recovery after general anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Residual neuromuscular block is associated with increased patient morbidity. Therefore prevention of residual neuromuscular block is an important component of general anaesthesia where neuromuscular blocking agents are used. Whereas sugammadex improves reversal based on neuromuscular twitch monitoring parameters, there have been no prospective, adequately powered definitive studies demonstrating that sugammadex is also associated with less patient morbidity.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomised trials comparing sugammadex with anticholinesterase-based reversal or placebo reversal that reported important patient outcomes beyond the postanaesthesia care unit.

RESULTS

We identified 43 articles, including 5839 trial participants. Only one trial reported days alive and out of hospital to 30 days (DAOH-30), which showed that the number of DAOH-30 was similar in those allocated to sugammadex compared with neostigmine-based reversal (25 days [19-27] vs 24 days [21-27], median difference 0.00 [-2.15 to 2.15]). Pooled analyses of data from 16 trials showed an estimated odds ratio (OR) for postoperative pulmonary complications of 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.47-0.95) with sugammadex use. Pooled analysis showed that pneumonia (eight trials OR 0.51 [0.24-1.01] with sugammadex use), hospital length of stay (23 trials, mean difference -0.31 [-0.84 to 0.22] with sugammadex use), and patient-reported quality of recovery (11 trials, varied depending on metric used) are similar in those allocated to sugammadex vs control. The difference seen in mortality (11 trials, OR 0.39 [0.15-1.01] with sugammadex use) would be considered to be clinically significant and warrants further investigation, however, the rarity of these events precludes drawing definitive conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Although few trials reported on DAOH-30 or important patient outcomes, sugammadex is associated with a reduction in postoperative pulmonary complications, however, this might not translate to a difference in hospital length of stay, patient-reported quality of recovery, or mortality.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database (CRD42022325858).

Evaluation of a Protocol for the Management of Maintenance and Reversal of Rocuronium Block Using Neostigmine or Sugammadex

BACKGROUND

Postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (PRNB) is defined as an adductor pollicis train-of-four ratio (TOFR) <0.9. It is a common postoperative complication when nondepolarizing muscle relaxants are either not reversed or reversed with neostigmine. PRNB has been reported in 25% to 58% of patients who receive intermediate-acting nondepolarizing muscle relaxants, and it is associated with increased morbidity and decreased patient satisfaction. We conducted a prospective descriptive cohort study during the implementation of a practice guideline that included the selective use of sugammadex or neostigmine. The primary study aim of this pragmatic study was to estimate the incidence of PRNB at arrival to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) when the practice guideline is followed.

METHODS

We enrolled patients undergoing orthopedic or abdominal surgery requiring neuromuscular blockade. Rocuronium administration was guided by surgical requirements and based on ideal body weight, with dose reductions for women and/or age >55 years. Only qualitative monitoring was available to the anesthesia providers, and selection of sugammadex or neostigmine was guided by tactile assessments of the response to train-of-four (TOF) stimulation by a peripheral nerve stimulator. Neostigmine was administered if no fade was detected in the TOF response at the thumb. Deeper blocks were reversed with sugammadex. The prespecified primary and secondary end points were the incidence of PRNB at arrival to the PACU, defined as a normalized TOFR (nTOFR) < 0.9, and severe PRNB, defined as nTOFR <0.7 on arrival to the PACU. Anesthesia providers were blinded to all quantitative measurements made by research staff.

RESULTS

Analysis included 163 patients, and 145 underwent orthopedic and 18 abdominal surgeries. Of the 163 patients, 92 (56%) were reversed with neostigmine and 71 (44%) with sugammadex. The overall incidence of PRNB at PACU arrival was 5 of 163 or 3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1-7). The incidence of severe PRNB in PACU was 1% (95% CI, 0-4). Three of the 5 subjects with PRNB had TOFR <0.4 at time of reversal but were given neostigmine since anesthesia providers detected no fade by qualitative assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a protocol that specifies rocuronium dosing and selective use of sugammadex versus neostigmine based on qualitative assessment of TOF count and fade allowed us to achieve an incidence of PRNB of 3% (95% CI, 1-7) at PACU arrival. Quantitative monitoring may be needed to further reduce this incidence.

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.

Neuromuscular monitoring during general anaesthesia: a review of current national and international guidelines

Background

The extent to which neuromuscular monitoring is included in professional anaesthesia society guidelines is unclear. Our aim was to comprehensively review neuromuscular monitoring guidelines published by these societies.

Methods

National societies were identified using the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists' member list and further manual searches were undertaken to identify multinational societies and specialist medical colleges. A web search and secondary literature search were conducted to locate guidelines for monitoring during anaesthesia. The income of each nation or group of nations was determined using the World Bank classification.

Results

Forty guidelines were identified. Of 38 nations or classifiable groups of nations, 25 (66%) were high-income nations and 13 (34%) were middle-income nations. Neuromuscular monitoring was mentioned in 36 (90%) of the 40 guidelines. Availability of neuromuscular monitoring was mentioned in 17 (47%) guidelines (mandated in eight [47%] and recommended in nine [53%]). Use of neuromuscular monitoring was mentioned in 26 (72%) guidelines (mandated in three [12%] and recommended in 23 [88%]). Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring was specified in nine (25%) of the guidelines, with the type of monitoring unspecified in the remaining 27 (75%) of the 36 guidelines. Quantitative monitoring was only mandated in one guideline, and this was only when monitoring equipment was available.

Conclusions

We identified a gap in the availability of professional anaesthesia society neuromuscular monitoring guidelines, particularly in middle- and low-income nations. Recommendations about availability, use and type of monitoring varied among guidelines. An effort to improve the availability and consistency of guidelines is required.

Comparison of the effects of neostigmine and sugammadex on postoperative residual curarization and postoperative pulmonary complications by means of diaphragm and lung ultrasonography: a study protocol for prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial

Background

Postoperative residual curarization (PORC) may be a potential risk factor of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), and both of them will lead to adverse consequences on surgical patient recovery. The train-of-four ratio (TOFr) which is detected by acceleromyography of the adductor pollicis is thought as the gold standard for the measurement of PORC. However, diaphragm function recovery may differ from that of the peripheral muscles. Recent studies suggested that diaphragm ultrasonography may be useful to reveal the diaphragm function recovery, and similarly, lung ultrasound was reported for the assessment of PPCs in recent years as well. Sugammadex reversal of neuromuscular blockade is rapid and complete, and there appear to be fewer postoperative complications than with neostigmine. This study aims to compare the effects of neostigmine and sugammadex, on PORC and PPCs employing diaphragm and lung ultrasonography, respectively.

Methods/design

In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I–III, aged over 60, will be enrolled. They will be scheduled to undergo arthroplasty under general anesthesia. All patients will be allocated randomly into two groups, group NEO (neostigmine) and group SUG (sugammadex), using these two drugs for reversing rocuronium. The primary outcome of the study is the incidence of PPCs in the NEO and SUG groups. The secondary outcomes are the evaluation of diaphragm ultrasonography and lung ultrasound, performed by an independent sonographer before anesthesia, and at 10 min and 30 min after extubation in the post-anesthesia care unit, respectively.

Discussion

Elimination of PORC is a priority at the emergence of anesthesia, and it may be associated with reducing postoperative complications like PPCs. Sugammadex was reported to be superior to reverse neuromuscular blockade than neostigmine. Theoretically, complete recovery of neuromuscular function should be indicated by TOFr > 0.9. However, the diaphragm function recovery may not be the same matter, which probably harms pulmonary function. The hypothesis will be proposed that sugammadex is more beneficial than neostigmine to reduce the incidence of PPCs and strongly favorable for the recovery of diaphragm function in our study setting.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05040490. Registered on 3 September 2021

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06328-3.