Sugammadex versus Neostigmine for Reversal

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.

This report analyzes the comparative costs, efficacy and side effects of a newer, more expensive reversal drug, sugammadex, with its generic counterpart, neostigmine combined with glycopyrrolate, or no reversal agent when used routinely to reverse rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade in adult patients. Cost analysis. We constructed a decision model to analyze the costs associated with the choice of reversal drug and differences in reversal time, occurrence of postoperative nausea or vomiting (PONV), and residual blockade requiring unplanned postoperative mechanical ventilation (UPMV). We selected variables that demonstrated meaningful differences in meta-analyses of published studies and/or had significant associated costs. We used data from local hospital system information, meta-analysis of published studies, and the general literature to construct base-case scenarios and sensitivity analyses. We performed the analysis from the perspective of a single hospital system. Costs were in 2019 U.S. dollars. Cost analysis suggested that reversal with sugammadex is preferable to neostigmine or no reversal drug when operating room (OR) time was valued at ≥$8.60/min (base case $32.49/min). Net costs of sugammadex were less than no treatment or neostigmine reversal when the probability of UPMV exceeded 0.019 and 0.036, respectively. Neither sugammadex nor neostigmine reversal was preferable to no treatment in a base-case analysis that considered the effect of the reversal agent on only drug and PONV costs, disregarding costs of OR time or UPMV. Routine reversal with sugammadex is preferable to choosing neostigmine or no reversal drug when accounting for potential savings in OR time. Sugammadex might also be a reasonable choice for patients at high risk of UPMV. If the cost of OR time is not considered, the analysis does not support the routine use of sugammadex in patients with perceived increased risk or solely to reduce PONV.

Residual neuromuscular block has been associated with postoperative pulmonary complications. We hypothesised that sugammadex reduces postoperative pulmonary complications in patients aged &#x2265;70 yr having surgery &#x2265;3 h, compared with neostigmine. Patients were enrolled in an open-label, assessor-blinded, randomised, controlled trial. At surgical closure, subjects were equally randomised to receive sugammadex 2 mg kg-1 or neostigmine 0.07 mg kg-1 (maximum 5 mg) for rocuronium reversal. The primary endpoint was incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications. Secondary endpoints included residual paralysis (train-of-four ratio <0.9 in the PACU) and Phase 1 recovery (time to attain pain control and stable respiratory, haemodynamic, and neurological status). The analysis was by intention-to-treat. Of the 200 subjects randomised, 98 received sugammadex and 99 received neostigmine. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of postoperative pulmonary complications despite a signal towards reduced incidence for sugammadex (33% vs 40%; odds ratio [OR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]=[0.40, 1.37]; P=0.30) compared with neostigmine. Sugammadex decreased residual neuromuscular block (10% vs 49%; OR=0.11, 95% CI=[0.04, 0.25]; P<0.001). Phase 1 recovery time was comparable between sugammadex (97.3 min [standard deviation, sd=54.3]) and neostigmine (110.0 min [sd=62.0]), difference -12.7 min (95% CI, [-29.2, 3.9], P=0.13). In an exploratory analysis, there were fewer 30 day hospital readmissions in the sugammadex group compared with the neostigmine group (5% vs 15%; OR=0.30, 95% CI=[0.08, 0.91]; P=0.03). In older adults undergoing prolonged surgery, sugammadex was associated with a 40% reduction in residual neuromuscular block, a 10% reduction in 30 day hospital readmission rate, but no difference in the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications. Based on this exploratory study, larger studies should determine whether sugammadex may reduce postoperative pulmonary complications and 30 day hospital readmissions. NCT02861131.

Five percent of adult patients undergoing noncardiac inpatient surgery experience a major pulmonary complication. The authors hypothesized that the choice of neuromuscular blockade reversal (neostigmine vs. sugammadex) may be associated with a lower incidence of major pulmonary complications. Twelve U.S. Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group hospitals were included in a multicenter observational matched-cohort study of surgical cases between January 2014 and August 2018. Adult patients undergoing elective inpatient noncardiac surgical procedures with general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation receiving a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade agent and reversal were included. Exact matching criteria included institution, sex, age, comorbidities, obesity, surgical procedure type, and neuromuscular blockade agent (rocuronium vs. vecuronium). Other preoperative and intraoperative factors were compared and adjusted in the case of residual imbalance. The composite primary outcome was major postoperative pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, respiratory failure, or other pulmonary complications (including pneumonitis; pulmonary congestion; iatrogenic pulmonary embolism, infarction, or pneumothorax). Secondary outcomes focused on the components of pneumonia and respiratory failure. Of 30,026 patients receiving sugammadex, 22,856 were matched to 22,856 patients receiving neostigmine. Out of 45,712 patients studied, 1,892 (4.1%) were diagnosed with the composite primary outcome (3.5% sugammadex vs. 4.8% neostigmine). A total of 796 (1.7%) patients had pneumonia (1.3% vs. 2.2%), and 582 (1.3%) respiratory failure (0.8% vs. 1.7%). In multivariable analysis, sugammadex administration was associated with a 30% reduced risk of pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.77), 47% reduced risk of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.62), and 55% reduced risk of respiratory failure (adjusted odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.56), compared to neostigmine. Among a generalizable cohort of adult patients undergoing inpatient surgery at U.S. hospitals, the use of sugammadex was associated with a clinically and statistically significant lower incidence of major pulmonary complications.

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a challenge for anesthesia management. This report shows that the use of rocuronium-sugammadex is not free from flaws and highlights the importance of cholinesterase inhibitors management and neuromuscular block monitoring in the perioperative period of myasthenic patients. Myasthenic female patient submitted to general balanced anesthesia using 25&#x2009;mg of rocuronium. Under train-of-four (TOF) monitoring, repeated doses of sugammadex was used in a total of 800&#x2009;mg without recovery of neuromuscular blockade, but TOF ratio (TOFR) was stabilized at 60%. Neostigmine administration led to the improvement of TOFR. Although the use of rocuronium-sugammadex seems safe, we should consider their unpredictability in myasthenic patients. This report supports the monitoring of neuromuscular blockade as mandatory in every patient, especially the myasthenic ones.

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. 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. Meta-analysis of included studies showed that the rate of desaturation (43.2% vs 45.0%, RR&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.82; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.05; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;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&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.002), atelectasis (24.6% vs 30.4%, RR&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.64; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.98; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.04), NIV (1.37% vs 2.33%, RR&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.65; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.04) and reintubation (0.99% vs 1.65%, RR&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.62; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.01) in the sugammadex group were detected compared with the neostigmine group. 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.

To conduct a meta-analysis to compare different dosing scalars of sugammadex in a morbidly obese population for reversal of neuromuscular blockade (NMB). PubMed&#xae;, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Google Scholar were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing lower-dose sugammadex using ideal body weight (IBW) or corrected body weight (CBW) as dosing scalars with standard-dose sugammadex based on total body weight (TBW) among morbidly obese people after NMB. Mean difference with SD was used to estimate the results. The analysis included five RCT with a total of 444 morbidly obese patients. The reversal time was significantly longer in patients receiving sugammadex with dosing scalar based on IBW than in patients receiving sugammadex with dosing scalar based on TBW (mean difference 55.77&#x2009;s, 95% confidence interval [CI] 32.01, 79.53&#x2009;s), but it was not significantly different between patients receiving sugammadex with dosing scalars based on CBW versus TBW (mean difference 2.28&#x2009;s, 95% CI -10.34, 14.89&#x2009;s). Compared with standard-dose sugammadex based on TBW, lower-dose sugammadex based on IBW had 56&#x2009;s longer reversal time whereas lower-dose sugammadex based on CBW had a comparable reversal time.