Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine for Reversal of Rocuronium Neuromuscular Block in Patients Having Catheter-Based Neurointerventional Procedures: A Randomized Trial

Impact of sugammadex and neostigmine on outcome after major orthopaedic surgery: A population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Residual neuromuscular blockade after surgery remains a major concern given its association with pulmonary complications. However, current clinical practices with and the comparative impact on perioperative risk of various reversal agents remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the use of sugammadex and neostigmine in the USA, and their impact on postoperative complications by examining national data.

DESIGN

This population-based retrospective study used national Premier Healthcare claims data.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing total hip/knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA), or lumbar spine fusion surgery between 2016 and 2019 in the United States who received neuromuscular blocking agents.

INTERVENTION

The effects of sugammadex and neostigmine for pharmacologically enhanced reversal were compared with each other and with controls who received no reversal agent.

MAIN OUTCOMES

included pulmonary complications, cardiac complications, and a need for postoperative ventilation. Mixed-effects regression models compared the outcomes between neostigmine, sugammadex, and controls. We report odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Bonferroni-adjusted P values of 0.008 were used to indicate significance.

RESULTS

Among 361 553 patients, 74.5% received either sugammadex (20.7%) or neostigmine (53.8%). Sugammadex use increased from 4.4% in 2016 to 35.4% in 2019, whereas neostigmine use decreased from 64.5% in 2016 to 43.4% in 2019. Sugammadex versus neostigmine or controls was associated with significantly reduced odds for cardiac complications (OR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.92 and OR 0.83, 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.89, respectively). Both sugammadex and neostigmine versus controls were associated with reduced odds for pulmonary complications (OR 0.85, 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.94 and OR 0.91, CI 0.85 to 0.98, respectively). A similar pattern of sugammadex and neostigmine was observed for a reduction in severe pulmonary complications, including the requirement of invasive ventilation (OR 0.54, 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.64 and OR 0.53, 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.6, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based data indicate that sugammadex and neostigmine both appear highly effective in reducing the odds of severe life-threatening pulmonary complications. Sugammadex, especially, was associated with reduced odds of cardiac complications.

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).

Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine for Recovery of Respiratory Muscle Strength Measured by Ultrasonography in the Postextubation Period: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Although sugammadex is well known for its use in reducing the incidence of residual neuromuscular blockade, this has not always been translated to improved clinical measures of postoperative respiratory muscle strength. Expiratory muscles play an important role in airway clearance and inspiratory muscle capacity augmentation, yet they have not been well studied. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis on whether sugammadex could enhance expiratory muscle strength recovery more completely than neostigmine in the immediate postextubation period.

METHODS

Adult patients having microlaryngeal surgery under total intravenous anesthesia were randomized to receive sugammadex or neostigmine. The thickening fraction of internal oblique abdominal muscle (TF IO ) and diaphragm excursion, respectively, reflecting expiratory and inspiratory muscle strength, were measured via ultrasonography at 3 time points: before induction (baseline), train-of-four ratio (TOFR) recovery to 0.9, and 30 minutes after postanesthesia care unit (PACU) arrival. The primary outcome was the change in TF IO from baseline to TOFR ≥0.9. The postoperative changes of diaphragm excursion from baseline, incidences of TF IO and diaphragm excursion returning to baseline levels, and the time from TOFR 0.9 to 0.95 and 1 were also measured.

RESULTS

Among 58 patients, a significant difference in the change in TF IO from baseline to TOFR ≥0.9 between the sugammadex and neostigmine groups was observed: mean ± standard deviation, 9% ± 6% vs 16% ± 9%; difference in means: -6% (95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to -2); and adjusted P =.005 (adjusting for imbalanced variables between 2 groups). Sugammadex resulted in smaller changes in diaphragm excursion from baseline to TOFR ≥0.9 compared with neostigmine: difference in means: -0.83 cm (99.4% CI, -1.39 to -0.28 cm; Bonferroni-corrected P < .001). After 30 minutes in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU),33% of patients reversed with sugammadex versus 14% of those receiving neostigmine reached baseline TF IO levels (99.4% CI, -14 to 52; Bonferroni-corrected P > .999). The incidences of TF IO and diaphragm excursion returning to baseline were relatively low (<40%) in both groups despite TOFR reaching 1. The median time from TOFR of 0.9 to 0.95 and to 1 among patients receiving sugammadex was 7 and 10× faster than those receiving neostigmine (0.3 vs 2 minutes, Bonferroni-corrected P = .003; 0.5 vs 5.3 minutes, Bonferroni-corrected P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Sugammadex provides a more complete recovery of expiratory muscle strength than neostigmine at TOFR ≥0.9. Our data suggest that the respiratory muscle strength might still be impaired despite TOFR reaching 1.

Comparison of neostigmine and sugammadex for hemodynamic parameters in neurointerventional anesthesia

Introduction

Hemodynamic stability is important during neurointerventional procedures. However, ICP or blood pressure may increase due to endotracheal extubation. The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic effects of sugammadex and neostigmine with atropine in neurointerventional procedures during emergence from anesthesia.

Methods

Patients undergoing neurointerventional procedures were allocated to the sugammadex group (Group S) and the neostigmine group (Group N). Group S was administered IV 2 mg/kg sugammadex when a train-of-four (TOF) count of 2 was present, and Group N was administered neostigmine 50 mcg/kg with atropine 0.2 mg/kg at a TOF count of 2. We recorded heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure (MAP), and peripheral arterial oxygen saturation during administration of the reverse agent and at 2, 5, 10, 15, 30, 120 min, and 24 h thereafter. The primary outcome was blood pressure and heart rate change after the reversal agent was given. The secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure variability standard deviation (a measure of the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of values), systolic blood pressure variability-successive variation (square root of the average squared difference between successive blood pressure measurements), nicardipine use, time-to-TOF ratio ≥0.9 after the administration of reversal agent, and time from the administration of the reversal agent to tracheal extubation.

Results

A total of 31 patients were randomized to sugammadex, and 30 patients were randomized to neostigmine. Except for anesthesia time, there were no significant differences in any of the clinical characteristics between the two groups. The results demonstrated that the increase in MAP from period A to B was significantly greater in Group N than in Group S (regression coefficient = -10, 95% confidence interval = -17.3 to -2.7, P = 0.007). The MAP level was significantly increased from period A to B in the neostigmine group (95.1 vs. 102.4 mm Hg, P = 0.015), but it was not altered in Group S. In contrast, the change in HR from periods A to B was not significantly different between groups.

Conclusion

We suggest that sugammadex is a better option than neostigmine in interventional neuroradiological procedures due to the shorter extubation time and more stable hemodynamic change during emergence.

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.