Factors Associated With Decision to Use and Dosing of Sugammadex in Children: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Sugammadex was initially approved for reversal of neuromuscular blockade in adults in the United States in 2015. Limited data suggest sugammadex is widely used in pediatric anesthesia practice however the factors influencing use are not known. We explore patient, surgical, and institutional factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine or no reversal, and the decision to use 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dosing.

METHODS

Using data from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database, an EHR-derived registry, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. Eligible cases were performed between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, for children 0 to 17 years at US hospitals. Cases involved general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation and administration of rocuronium or vecuronium. Using generalized linear mixed models with institution and anesthesiologist-specific random intercepts, we measured the importance of a variety of patient, clinician, institution, anesthetic, and surgical risk factors in the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine, and the decision to use a 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dose. We then used intraclass correlation statistics to evaluate the proportion of variance contributed by institution and anesthesiologist specifically.

RESULTS

There were 97,654 eligible anesthetics across 30 institutions. Of these 47.1% received sugammadex, 43.1% received neostigmine, and 9.8% received no reversal agent. Variability in the choice to use sugammadex was attributable primarily to institution (40.4%) and attending anesthesiologist (27.1%). Factors associated with sugammadex use (compared to neostigmine) include time from first institutional use of sugammadex (odds ratio [OR], 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.09, per month, P < .001), younger patient age groups (0-27 days OR, 2.59 [2.00-3.34], P < .001; 28 days-1 year OR, 2.72 [2.16-3.43], P < .001 vs 12-17 years), increased American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status (ASA III: OR, 1.32 [1.23-1.42], P < .001 ASA IV OR, 1.71 [1.46-2.00], P < .001 vs ASA I), neuromuscular disease (OR, 1.14 (1.04-1.26], P = .006), cardiac surgery (OR, 1.76 [1.40-2.22], P < .001), dose of neuromuscular blockade within the hour before reversal (>2 ED95s/kg OR, 4.58 (4.14-5.07], P < .001 vs none), and shorter case duration (case duration <60 minutes OR, 2.06 [1.75-2.43], P < .001 vs >300 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in sugammadex use was primarily explained by institution and attending anesthesiologist. Patient factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex included younger age, higher doses of neuromuscular blocking agents, and increased medical complexity.

From pandemic response to portable population health: A formative evaluation of the Detroit mobile health unit program

This article describes our experience developing a novel mobile health unit (MHU) program in the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area. Our main objectives were to improve healthcare accessibility, quality and equity in our community during the novel coronavirus pandemic. While initially focused on SARS-CoV-2 testing, our program quickly evolved to include preventive health services. The MHU program began as a location-based SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy coordinated with local and state public health agencies. Community needs motivated further program expansion to include additional preventive healthcare and social services. MHU deployment was targeted to disease "hotspots" based on publicly available SARS-CoV-2 testing data and community-level information about social vulnerability. This formative evaluation explores whether our MHU deployment strategy enabled us to reach patients from communities with heightened social vulnerability as intended. From 3/20/20-3/24/21, the Detroit MHU program reached a total of 32,523 people. The proportion of patients who resided in communities with top quartile Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index rankings increased from 25% during location-based "drive-through" SARS-CoV-2 testing (3/20/20-4/13/20) to 27% after pivoting to a mobile platform (4/13/20-to-8/31/20; p = 0.01). The adoption of a data-driven deployment strategy resulted in further improvement; 41% of the patients who sought MHU services from 9/1/20-to-3/24/21 lived in vulnerable communities (Cochrane Armitage test for trend, p<0.001). Since 10/1/21, 1,837 people received social service referrals and, as of 3/15/21, 4,603 were administered at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Our MHU program demonstrates the capacity to provide needed healthcare and social services to difficult-to-reach populations from areas with heightened social vulnerability. This model can be expanded to meet emerging pandemic needs, but it is also uniquely capable of improving health equity by addressing longstanding gaps in primary care and social services in vulnerable communities.

Prevalence of coronary risk factors in contemporary practice among patients undergoing their first percutaneous coronary intervention: Implications for primary prevention

Background

Cigarette smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and obesity are conventional risk factors (RFs) for coronary artery disease (CAD). Population trends for these RFs have varied in recent decades. Consequently, the risk factor profile for patients presenting with a new diagnosis of CAD in contemporary practice remains unknown.

Objectives

To examine the prevalence of RFs and their temporal trends among patients without a history of myocardial infarction or revascularization who underwent their first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

We examined the prevalence and temporal trends of RFs among patients without a history of prior myocardial infarction, PCI, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery who underwent PCI at 47 non-federal hospitals in Michigan between 1/1/2010 and 3/31/2018.

Results

Of 69,571 men and 38,930 women in the study cohort, 95.5% of patients had 1 or more RFs and nearly half (55.2% of women and 48.7% of men) had ≥3 RFs. The gap in the mean age at the time of presentation between men and women narrowed as the number of RFs increased with a gap of 6 years among those with 2 RFs to <1 year among those with 5 RFs. Compared with patients without a current/recent history of smoking, those with a current/recent history of smoking presented a decade earlier (age 56.8 versus 66.9 years; p <0.0001). Compared with patients without obesity, patients with obesity presented 4.0 years earlier (age 61.4 years versus 65.4 years; p <0.0001).

Conclusions

Modifiable RFs are widely prevalent among patients undergoing their first PCI. Smoking and obesity are associated with an earlier age of presentation. Population-level interventions aimed at preventing obesity and smoking could significantly delay the onset of CAD and the need for PCI.

Trends and outcomes of non-primary PCI at sites without cardiac surgery on-site: The early Michigan experience

Introduction

Non-primary percutaneous coronary intervention (non-PPCI) recently received certificate of need approval in the state of Michigan at sites without cardiac surgery on-site (cSoS). This requires quality oversight through participation in the BMC2 registry. While previous studies have indicated the safety of this practice, real-world comprehensive outcomes, case volume changes, economic impacts, and readmission rates at diverse healthcare centers with and without cSoS remain poorly understood.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing non-PPCI at 47 hospitals (33 cSoS and 14 non-cSoS) in Michigan from April 2016 to March 2018 were included. Using propensity-matching, patients were analyzed to assess outcomes and trends in non-PPCI performance at sites with and without cSOS.

Results

Of 61,864 PCI’s performed, 50,817 were non-PPCI, with 46,096 (90.7%) performed at sites with cSoS and 4,721 (9.3%) at sites without cSoS. From this cohort, 4,643 propensity-matched patients were analyzed. Rates of major adverse cardiac events (2.6% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.443), in-hospital mortality (0.6% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.465), and several secondary clinical and quality outcomes showed no clinically significant differences. Among a small subset with available post-discharge data, there were no differences in 90-day readmission rates, standardized episode costs, or post-discharge mortality. Overall PCI volume remained stable, with a near three-fold rise in non-PPCI at sites without cSoS.

Conclusions

Non-PPCI at centers without cardiac SoS was associated with similar comprehensive outcomes, quality of care, 90-day episode costs, and post-discharge mortality compared with surgical sites. Mandatory quality oversight serves to maintain appropriate equivalent outcomes and may be considered for other programs, including the performance of non-PPCI at ambulatory surgical centers in the near future.