RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The impact of sugammadex in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing kidney transplantation is still far from being defined. The aim of the study is to compare sugammadex to neostigmine for reversal of rocuronium- and cisatracurium-induced neuromuscular block (NMB), respectively, in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. METHODS: A single-center, 2014-2017 retrospective cohort case-control study was performed. A total of 350 patients undergoing kidney transplantation, equally divided between a sugammadex group (175 patients) and a neostigmine group (175 patients), were considered. Postoperative kidney function, evaluated by monitoring of serum creatinine and urea and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), was the endpoint. Other endpoints were anesthetic and surgical times, post-anesthesia care unit length of stay, postoperative intensive care unit admission, and recurrent NMB or complications. RESULTS: No significant differences in patient or, with the exception of drugs involved in NMB management, anesthetic, and surgical characteristics, were observed between the two groups. Serum creatinine (median [interquartile range]: 596.0 [478.0-749.0] vs 639.0 [527.7-870.0] µmol/L, p = 0.0128) and serum urea (14.9 [10.8-21.6] vs 17.1 [13.1-22.0] mmol/L, p = 0.0486) were lower, while eGFR (8.0 [6.0-11.0] vs 8.0 [6.0-10.0], p = 0.0473) was higher in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group after surgery. The sugammadex group showed significantly lower incidence of postoperative severe hypoxemia (0.6% vs 6.3%, p = 0.006), shorter PACU stay (70 [60-90] min vs 90 [60-105] min, p < 0.001), and reduced ICU admissions (0.6% vs 8.0%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to cisatracurium-neostigmine, the rocuronium-sugammadex strategy for reversal of NMB showed a better recovery profile in patients undergoing kidney transplantation.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: General anaesthesia should prevent patients from experiencing surgery, defined as connected consciousness. The isolated forearm technique (IFT) is the current gold standard for connected consciousness monitoring. We evaluated the efficacy of different anaesthesia regimens in preventing IFT responses. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of studies evaluating IFT in adults. Proportions of IFT-positive patients were compared for inhalational versus intravenous anaesthesia and anaesthesia brain monitor (ABM)-guided versus non-ABM-guided. RESULTS: Of 1131 patients in 22 studies, 393 (34.8%) had an IFT response during induction or maintenance. IFT-positive patients were less frequent during induction (19.7% [95% CI, 17.5-22.1]) than during maintenance (31.2% [95% CI, 27.8-34.8]). Proportions of IFT-positive patients during induction and maintenance were similar for inhalational (0.51 [95% CI, 0.38-0.65]) and intravenous (0.52 [95% CI, 0.26-0.77]) anaesthesia, but during maintenance were lower with inhalational (0.18 [95% CI, 0.08-0.38]) than with intravenous (0.48 [95% CI, 0.24-0.73]) anaesthesia. Proportions of IFT-positive patients during induction and maintenance were not significantly different for ABM-guided (0.64 [95% CI, 0.39-0.83]) and non-ABM-guided (0.48 [95% CI, 0.34-0.62]) anaesthesia but during maintenance were lower with non-ABM-guided (0.19 [95% CI, 0.09-0.37]) than with ABM-guided (0.57 [95% CI, 0.34-0.77]). Proportions of IFT-positive patients decreased significantly with increasing age and premedication use. Of the 34 anaesthesia regimens, 16 were inadequate. Studies had low methodological quality (only seven randomised controlled trials) and significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Standard general anaesthesia regimens might not prevent connected consciousness. More accurate anaesthesia brain monitor methodology to reduce the likelihood of connected consciousness is desirable.