Sugammadex and oral contraceptives.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review article explores the evidence regarding sugammadex (MSD Australia) and its potential interaction with hormonal contraceptives. The impact of recent clinical trials and review articles is examined. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent clinical data suggest that the interaction between sugammadex and estrogen and progesterone concentrations may not be clinically significant and may confer some protection against ovulation. There are no clinical trials reporting interactions between sugammadex and the exogenous hormonal compounds found in oral contraceptive pills. The method of contraception is an important consideration, as sugammadex theoretically affects oral and nonoral, and combined versus single agent methods differently. Two large retrospective database studies have reported two cases of pregnancy postoperatively in patients on hormonal contraceptives whose anesthetic included sugammadex. SUMMARY: Strong clinical evidence to support or refute claims of a significant impact of sugammadex on contraceptive efficacy in women on contraception is lacking. The existing evidence does not suggest a basis for concern regarding the impact of sugammadex on contraception in the perioperative setting.

The impact of sugammadex dosing and administration practices on potential cost savings for pharmacy departments.

PURPOSE: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are commonly used during surgery, and restoring neuromuscular function at the end of surgery is vital in preventing complications of residual paralysis. Recent guidelines from the American Society of Anesthesiology recommend using sugammadex over neostigmine; however, sugammadex is significantly more expensive than neostigmine and may increase drug expenditure for pharmacy departments. This review summarizes evidence evaluating sugammadex dose adjustments and the potential of these dose adjustments to lead to cost savings for pharmacy departments. SUMMARY: We found evidence suggesting that the manufacturer-recommended sugammadex dose may not be needed in many patients and that dosing based on an adjusted body weight or based on depth of neuromuscular blockade may lead to lower sugammadex usage. Combining sugammadex with neostigmine could also decrease the dose of sugammadex required. We have highlighted the importance of objective neuromuscular monitoring to guide sugammadex dosing and evaluation for residual neuromuscular blockade. Cost savings for pharmacy departments may be realized by these alternative dosing strategies and/or vial-splitting practices. CONCLUSION: Implementing practices related to sugammadex vial splitting and dose adjustment based on body weight and depth of neuromuscular blockade shows potential benefits in terms of sugammadex cost savings.

γ-Cyclodextrin-based polypseudorotaxane hydrogels for ophthalmic delivery of flurbiprofen to treat anterior uveitis.

Anterior uveitis is a sight-threatening inflammation inside the eyes. Conventional eye drops for anti-inflammatory therapy need to be administered frequently owing to the rapid elimination and corneal barrier. To address these issues, polypseudorotaxane hydrogels were developed by mixing Soluplus micelles (99.4 nm) and cyclodextrins solution. The optimized hydrogels exhibited shear-thinning and sustained release properties. The hydrogels exhibited higher transcorneal permeability coefficient (Papp, 1.84 folds) than that of drug solutions. Moreover, animal study indicated that the hydrogels significantly increased the precorneal retention (AUC, 21.2 folds) and intraocular bioavailability of flurbiprofen (AUCAqueous humor, 17.8 folds) in comparison with drug solutions. Importantly, the hydrogels obviously boosted anti-inflammatory efficacy in rabbit model of endotoxin-induced uveitis at a reduced administration frequency. Additionally, the safety of hydrogels was confirmed by cytotoxicity and ocular irritation studies. In all, the present study demonstrates a friendly non-invasive strategy based on γ-CD-based polypseudorotaxane hydrogels for ocular drug delivery.

Cyclodextrin-based host-guest complexes loaded with regorafenib for colorectal cancer treatment.

The malignancy of colorectal cancer (CRC) is connected with inflammation and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), but effective therapeutics for CRC are limited. To integrate therapeutic targeting with tumor microenvironment (TME) reprogramming, here we develop biocompatible, non-covalent channel-type nanoparticles (CNPs) that are fabricated through host-guest complexation and self-assemble of mannose-modified γ-cyclodextrin (M-γ-CD) with Regorafenib (RG), RG@M-γ-CD CNPs. In addition to its carrier role, M-γ-CD serves as a targeting device and participates in TME regulation. RG@M-γ-CD CNPs attenuate inflammation and inhibit TAM activation by targeting macrophages. They also improve RG's anti-tumor effect by potentiating kinase suppression. In vivo application shows that the channel-type formulation optimizes the pharmacokinetics and bio-distribution of RG. In colitis-associated cancer and CT26 mouse models, RG@M-γ-CD is proven to be a targeted, safe and effective anti-tumor nanomedicine that suppresses tumor cell proliferation, lesions neovascularization, and remodels TME. These findings indicate RG@M-γ-CD CNPs as a potential strategy for CRC treatment.

Exercise Performance Upregulatory Effect of R-α-Lipoic Acid with γ-Cyclodextrin.

α-Lipoic acid (ALA) is a vitamin-like substance that is an indispensable supporting factor for a large number of enzymes. Due to its optical activity, ALA has optical isomers RALA and SALA. The major role of RALA is in energy metabolism. However, RALA cannot be used as a pharmaceutical or nutraceutical because it is sensitive to heat and acid conditions. Previous studies have shown that RALA complexed with γ-cyclodextrin (CD) has a higher antioxidant capacity than that of free RALA. The antioxidant enzyme system protects against intense exercise-induced oxidative damage and is related to the physical status of athletes. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of CD/RALA complex supplementation on antioxidant activity and performance during high-intensity exercise. Twenty-four male C3H/HeSlc mice were divided into four groups (n = 6): swimming+distilled water administration (C), swimming+CD/RALA supplementation (CD/RALA), swimming+RALA suplementation (RALA), and swimming+CD supplementation (CD). Blood ammonia elevation due to exercise stress was repressed by CD/RALA supplementation. The oxidative stress in the kidney increased after exercise and was reduced by CD/RALA supplementation. Our findings suggest that CD/RALA supplementation may be useful for improving the exercise performance in athletes.

Toxicity of therapeutic contact lenses based on bacterial cellulose with coatings to provide transparency.

Therapeutic contact lenses were developed from bacterial cellulose (BC) by the Institute of Chemistry at Brazil's São Paulo State University (UNESP). In a previous study, cyclodextrins (CD) and medications such as ciprofloxacin (CP) and diclofenac sodium (DS) were incorporated into the lenses to provide therapeutic properties and control drug release. However, significant opacity was seen in the material inherent to cellulose. In order to achieve full material transparency, the lenses were coated with an organic-inorganic hybrid compound containing aluminum alkoxide and glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane (GPTS)(H), or chitosan (Q) nanoparticles. This study evaluated the toxicity of these contact lenses to ensure the safety of these materials for future availability to the medical device industry. Lenses composed of BC and coated with either GPTS (H) or chitosan (Q), incorporating ciclodextrin (CD) to release diclofenac sodium (DS) or ciprofloxacin (CP), were submitted to cytotoxicity assays (XTT and Clonogenic Survival), genotoxicity (Comet Assay) and mutagenicity (Cytokinesis-blocked micronucleus assay) directly in cell culture. Statistical analyses were performed using the Tukey and Dunnett or Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests. All of the nanoparticles used in the lense coatings did not show cytotoxic effects by the XTT test (p > 0.05; Dunnett). Only materials associated with diclofenac sodium (BC-H-CD-DS and BC-Q-CD-DS) presented significantly different survival fractions compared to negative control (p < 0.001; Dunnett). Genotoxicity evaluation revealed a genotoxic effect in BC-H-CD-DS (p < 0.05; Dunn). All tested lenses did not present any mutagenic effect. These results indicate that improvements in DS incorporation are needed to eliminate toxicity. We demonstrated promising results in the safety of employing BC lenses functionalized with a drug delivery system permitting the bioavailability of ophthalmic drugs. Further studies utilizing other specific tests, such as corneal lineage are required before safe and efficient ophthalmologic use.

Effect of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing microvascular decompression under propofol-maintained anesthesia: A retrospective observational study.

Microvascular decompression (MVD) is associated with a particularly high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) among craniotomy patients. However, there is no information regarding the effect of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex on PONV in patients undergoing MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia.Medical records of 274 adults who had undergone MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia were reviewed. Patients were classified into 4 groups, based on the reversal agent used (sugammadex/pyridostigmine) and whether or not prophylactic palonosetron was used. The PONV incidence and risk factors were analyzed according to the use of these agents.The overall incidence of PONV was 30.7% during the first 24 hours postoperatively. The incidence of PONV was lower in the group using combination of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex (19.3%) compared with the group not using both agents (37.2%). The combined use of the prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex was identified as a factor affecting the occurrence of PONV in both univariable (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21-0.77, P = .006) and multivariable (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.75, P = .005) logistic regression analyses. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, female sex was also significant independent risk factor in PONV (OR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.35-5.08, P = .004).In this retrospective observational study, the combined use of prophylactic palonosetron before anesthetic induction and sugammadex as a reversal of neuromuscular blockade are associated with a reduction in the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia.

Comparison of postoperative coagulation profiles and outcome for sugammadex versus pyridostigmine in 992 living donors after living-donor hepatectomy.

Donor safety is the major concern in living donor liver transplantation, although hepatic resection may be associated with postoperative coagulopathy. Recently, the use of sugammadex has been gradually increased, but sugammadex is known to prolong prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). We compared the postoperative coagulation profiles and outcomes of sugammadex versus pyridostigmine group in donors receiving living donor hepatectomy.Consecutive donor hepatectomy performed between September 2013 and August 2016 was retrospectively analyzed. For reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade, donors received sugammadex 4 mg/kg or pyridostigmine 0.25 mg/kg. The primary end-points were laboratory findings (PT, aPTT, hemoglobin, platelet count) and clinically evaluated postoperative bleeding (relaparotomy for bleeding, cumulative volume collected in drains). Secondary outcomes were anesthesia time, postoperative hospital day.Of 992 donors, 383 treated with sugammadex and 609 treated with pyridostigmine for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade. There were no significant differences between both groups for drop in hemoglobin and platelet, prolongation in PT, aPTT, and the amount of 24-h drain volume. Bleeding events within 24 h were reported in 2 (0.3%) for pyridostigmine group and 0 (0%) for sugammadex group (P = .262). Anesthesia time was significantly longer in pyridostigmine group than that in sugammadex group (438.8 ±â€Š71.4 vs. 421.3 ±â€Š62.3, P < .001). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in pyridostigmine group than that in sugammadex group (P = .002).Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was not associated with increased bleeding tendency, but associated with reduced anesthesia time and hospital stay. Therefore, sugammadex may be safely used and will decrease morbidity in donor undergoing living-donor hepatectomy.

Sugammadex Improves Neuromuscular Function in Patients Receiving Perioperative Steroids.

CONTEXT: Sugammadex has steroid-encapsulating effect. AIM: This study was undertaken to assess whether the clinical efficacy of sugammadex was altered by the administration of steroids. SETTING AND DESIGN: Sixty patients between 18 and 60 years of age with the American Society of Anesthesiologists I-IV and undergoing elective direct laryngoscopy/biopsy were included in this study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were assigned to two groups based on the intraoperative steroid use: those who received steroid (Group S) and who did not (Group C). After standard general anesthesia, patients were monitored with the train of four (TOF) monitoring. The preferred steroid and its dose, timing of steroid administration, and TOF value before and after sugammadex as well as the time to recovery (TOF of 0.9) were recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: SPSS software version 17.0 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There is no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of age, gender, preoperative medication use, and TOF ratio just before administering sugammadex. The reached time to TOF 0.9 after sugammadex administration was significantly shorter in Group S than Group C (P < 0.05). A within-group comparison in Group S showed no difference in TOF ratio immediately before sugammadex as well as the dose of sugammadex in those who received prednisolone; time to TOF 0.9 was higher in prednisolone receivers as compared to dexamethasone receivers (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients receiving steroids, and particularly dexamethasone, an earlier reversal of neuromuscular block by sugammadex was found, in contrast with what one expect. Further studies are required to determine the cause of this effect which is probably due to a potential interaction between sugammadex and steroids.

Staggering the dose of sugammadex lowers risks for severe emergence cough: a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Cough on emergence has been reported as a common adverse reaction with sugammadex reversal. We investigated if staggering the dose of sugammadex will reduce emergence cough in a single-center, randomized, double-blinded study. METHODS: A hundred and twenty ASA 1-3 adults were randomly reversed with 1 mg/kg sugammadex prior to extubation followed by another 1 mg/kg immediately after extubation (staggered group), single dose of 2 mg/kg sugammadex (single bolus group) or neostigmine 0.02 mg/kg with glycopyrrolate (neostigmine group). RESULTS: We found 70% of patients (n = 28) reversed with single boluses of sugammadex had Grade 3 emergence cough compared to 12.5% (n = 5) in the staggered sugammadex group and 17.5% (n = 7) in the neostigmine group (p < 0.001). Besides cough, emergence agitation also appeared highest in the single bolus sugammadex group (n = 14, 35%, p = 0.005). On the other hand, staggering sugammadex lowered risks of developing severe cough (RR 0.2, p < 0.001) and agitation (RR 0.43, p = 0.010) on emergence in addition to cough (RR 0.25, p = 0.039) and early sore throat (RR 0.70, p = 0.036) in the post-anesthetic care unit. The risks for severe emergence cough (RR 0.86, p = 0.762), severe cough in the post-anesthetic care unit (RR 1.0, p = 1.000) and sore throat (RR 1.17, p = 0.502) were also not different between the staggered sugammadex group and control given neostigmine. In terms of timing, there was no delay in time taken from discontinuing anesthetic agents to reversal and extubation if sugammadex was staggered (emergence time 6.0 ± 3.2 s, p = 0.625 and reversal time 6.5 ± 3.5, p = 0.809). CONCLUSIONS: Staggering the dose of sugammadex for reversal will effectively decrease common emergence and early postoperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR Number ACTRN12616000116426 . Retrospectively registered on 2nd February 2016.

Preparing for the unexpected: special considerations and complications after sugammadex administration.

Sugammadex, a modified gamma-cyclodextrin, has changed clinical practice of neuromuscular reversal dramatically. With the introduction of this selective relaxant binding agent, rapid and reliable neuromuscular reversal from any depth of block became possible. Sugammadex can reverse neuromuscular blockade without the muscarinic side effects typically associated with the administration of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. However, what remained unchanged is the incidence of residual neuromuscular blockade. It is known that sugammadex cannot always prevent its occurrence, if appropriate dosing is not chosen based on the level of neuromuscular paralysis prior to administration determined by objective neuromuscular monitoring. Alternatively, excessive doses of sugammadex administered in an attempt to ensure full and sustained reversal may affect the effectiveness of rocuronium in case of immediate reoperation or reintubation. In such emergent scenarios that require onset of rapid and reliable neuromuscular blockade, the summary of product characteristics (package insert) recommends using benzylisoquinolinium neuromuscular blocking agents or a depolarizing agent. However, if rapid intubation is required, succinylcholine has a significant number of side effects, and benzylisoquinolinium agents may not have the rapid onset required. Therefore, prior administration of sugammadex introduces a new set of potential problems that require new solutions. This novel reversal agent thus presents new challenges and anesthesiologists must familiarize themselves with specific issues with its use (e.g., bleeding risk, hypermagnesemia, hypothermia). This review will address sugammadex administration in such special clinical situations.

Effect of sugammadex versus neostigmine/atropine combination on postoperative cognitive dysfunction after elective surgery.

This study aimed to assess the effects of sugammadex and neostigmine/atropine on postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) in adult patients after elective surgery. A randomised, double-blind controlled trial was carried out on 160 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to III patients who were >40 years. The Mini-Mental State Evaluation, clock-drawing test and the Isaacs Set test were used to assess cognitive function at three timepoints: 1) preoperatively, 2) one hour postoperatively, and 3) at discharge. The anaesthetic protocol was the same for all patients, except for the neuromuscular block reversal, which was administered by random allocation using either sugammadex or neostigmine/atropine after the reappearance of T2 in the train-of-four sequence. POCD was defined as a decline ≥1 standard deviation in ≥2 cognitive tests. The incidence of POCD was similar in both groups at one hour postoperatively and at discharge (28% and 10%, in the neostigmine group, 23% and 5.4% in the sugammadex group, P=0.55 and 0.27 respectively). In relation to individual tests, a significant decline of clock-drawing test in the neostigmine group was observed at one hour postoperatively and at discharge. For the Isaacs Set test, a greater decline was found in the sugammadex group. These findings suggest that there are no clinically important differences in the incidence of POCD after neostigmine or sugammadex administration.

Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults.

BACKGROUND: Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, such as neostigmine, have traditionally been used for reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents. However, these drugs have significant limitations, such as indirect mechanisms of reversal, limited and unpredictable efficacy, and undesirable autonomic responses. Sugammadex is a selective relaxant-binding agent specifically developed for rapid reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium. Its potential clinical benefits include fast and predictable reversal of any degree of block, increased patient safety, reduced incidence of residual block on recovery, and more efficient use of healthcare resources. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade caused by non-depolarizing neuromuscular agents in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 2 May 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (WebSPIRS Ovid SP), Embase (WebSPIRS Ovid SP), and the clinical trials registries www.controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and www.centerwatch.com. We re-ran the search on 10 May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published, or language. We included adults, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I to IV, who received non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents for an elective in-patient or day-case surgical procedure. We included all trials comparing sugammadex versus neostigmine that reported recovery times or adverse events. We included any dose of sugammadex and neostigmine and any time point of study drug administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to identify trials for eligibility, examined articles for eligibility, abstracted data, assessed the articles, and excluded obviously irrelevant reports. We resolved disagreements by discussion between review authors and further disagreements through consultation with the last review author. We assessed risk of bias in 10 methodological domains using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and examined risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. We used the principles of the GRADE approach to prepare an overall assessment of the quality of evidence. For our primary outcomes (recovery times to train-of-four ratio (TOFR) > 0.9), we presented data as mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and for our secondary outcomes (risk of adverse events and risk of serious adverse events), we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with CIs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 studies (4206 participants) in this updated review, 38 of which were new studies. Twelve trials were eligible for meta-analysis of primary outcomes (n = 949), 28 trials were eligible for meta-analysis of secondary outcomes (n = 2298), and 10 trials (n = 1647) were ineligible for meta-analysis.We compared sugammadex 2 mg/kg and neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg for reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate neuromuscular blockade (NMB). Sugammadex 2 mg/kg was 10.22 minutes (6.6 times) faster then neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (1.96 vs 12.87 minutes) in reversing NMB from the second twitch (T2) to TOFR > 0.9 (MD 10.22 minutes, 95% CI 8.48 to 11.96; I2 = 84%; 10 studies, n = 835; GRADE: moderate quality).We compared sugammadex 4 mg/kg and neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg for reversal of rocuronium-induced deep NMB. Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was 45.78 minutes (16.8 times) faster then neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (2.9 vs 48.8 minutes) in reversing NMB from post-tetanic count (PTC) 1 to 5 to TOFR > 0.9 (MD 45.78 minutes, 95% CI 39.41 to 52.15; I2 = 0%; two studies, n = 114; GRADE: low quality).For our secondary outcomes, we compared sugammadex, any dose, and neostigmine, any dose, looking at risk of adverse and serious adverse events. We found significantly fewer composite adverse events in the sugammadex group compared with the neostigmine group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74; I2 = 40%; 28 studies, n = 2298; GRADE: moderate quality). Risk of adverse events was 28% in the neostigmine group and 16% in the sugammadex group, resulting in a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8. When looking at specific adverse events, we noted significantly less risk of bradycardia (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; I2= 0%; 11 studies, n = 1218; NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 389; NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality) and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57; I2 = 0%; 15 studies, n = 1474; NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) in the sugammadex group when compared with the neostigmine group. Finally, we found no significant differences between sugammadex and neostigmine regarding risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.25; I2= 0%; 10 studies, n = 959; GRADE: low quality).Application of trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicates superiority of sugammadex for outcomes such as recovery time from T2 to TOFR > 0.9, adverse events, and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review results suggest that in comparison with neostigmine, sugammadex can more rapidly reverse rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block regardless of the depth of the block. Sugammadex 2 mg/kg is 10.22 minutes (˜ 6.6 times) faster in reversing moderate neuromuscular blockade (T2) than neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (GRADE: moderate quality), and sugammadex 4 mg/kg is 45.78 minutes (˜ 16.8 times) faster in reversing deep neuromuscular blockade (PTC 1 to 5) than neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (GRADE: low quality). With an NNTB of 8 to avoid an adverse event, sugammadex appears to have a better safety profile than neostigmine. Patients receiving sugammadex had 40% fewer adverse events compared with those given neostigmine. Specifically, risks of bradycardia (RR 0.16, NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), PONV (RR 0.52, NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality), and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) were reduced. Both sugammadex and neostigmine were associated with serious adverse events in less than 1% of patients, and data showed no differences in risk of serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.54; GRADE: low quality).

Sugammadex efficacy for reversal of rocuronium- and vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade: A pooled analysis of 26 studies.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To summarize and compare efficacy of sugammadex with neostigmine or placebo for reversal of rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade (NMB), and to demonstrate consistency of sugammadex results across various patient populations. DESIGN: Pooled analysis on data from 26 multicenter, randomized, Phase II and III studies. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: 1855 adults undergoing surgery under general anesthesia and receiving rocuronium or vecuronium for NMB. INTERVENTIONS: Sugammadex (2.0mg/kg at second twitch reappearance [T2; moderate NMB], 4.0mg/kg at 1-2 post-tetanic counts [PTC; deep NMB] or 16.0mg/kg at 3min after rocuronium 1.2mg/kg), neostigmine or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Time to recovery of the train-of-four (TOF) ratio to 0.9. MAIN RESULTS: Geometric mean (95% CI) times to recovery to TOF ratio of 0.9 were 1.9 (1.8-2.0) min following sugammadex 2.0mg/kg and 10.6 (9.8-11.6) min following neostigmine administration at T2 after rocuronium, and 2.9 (2.5-3.4) min and 17.4 (13.4-22.6) min, respectively, after vecuronium. Recovery times were 2.2 (2.1-2.3) min following sugammadex 4.0mg/kg and 19.0 (14.8-24.6) min following neostigmine administered at a target of 1-2 PTC after rocuronium, and 3.8 (3.0-5.0) min and 67.6 (56.3-81.2) min after vecuronium. Sugammadex administered 3min after rocuronium 1.2mg/kg resulted in rapid recovery (1.7 [1.5-2.0] min). Modest increases in mean recovery time were associated with vecuronium use (+1.6min [78%; (61%-98%)] versus rocuronium), mild-to-moderate renal impairment (+0.4min [20%; (9%-32%)] versus normal renal function) and geographic location (+1.0min [38%; (25%-52%)] in subjects in USA/Canada versus Europe/Japan). CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex administered at recommended doses provides rapid and predictable reversal of rocuronium and vecuronium-induced moderate and deep NMB, and effective reversal 3min after rocuronium 1.2mg/kg. Robust recovery was seen across various patient factors, providing further confirmation of labeled dose recommendations.

Does Sugammadex Administration Affect Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to assess the effect of sugammadex on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Eighty patients who were scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery were enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were randomly assigned to neostigmine (group N) or sugammadex (group S) for neuromuscular antagonism at the end of anesthesia. The incidence of PONV and antiemetic consumption were recorded. RESULTS: Nausea and vomiting were observed in 60% of the patients given sugammadex and 77.5% given neostigmine during the initial 24 hours postoperatively. The incidence of nausea and the need for rescue antiemetic were lower in group S than group N during all time intervals but there were no significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex seems to be effective in decreasing the incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, number of patients who suffered from nausea and vomiting, and need for rescue antiemetic, although there were no significant differences.