Pyridostigmine to Reduce the duration of postoperative Ileus after Colorectal surgery (PyRICo-RCT): randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus, driven by the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, is the most common complication in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. By inhibiting acetylcholinesterase, pyridostigmine can potentially modulate the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway and accelerate gastrointestinal recovery. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of pyridostigmine in improving gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery. METHODS: This double-blinded RCT enrolled adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery at two hospitals in South Australia. Patients were randomized to 60 mg oral pyridostigmine or placebo twice daily starting 6 h after surgery until the first passage of stool. The primary outcome was GI-2, a validated composite measure of time to first stool and tolerance of oral diet. Secondary outcomes included incidence of postoperative ileus (defined as GI-2 greater than 4 days), duration of hospital stay, and 30-day complications, evaluated by intention-to-treat univariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 130 patients recruited (mean(s.d.) age 58.4(16.4) years; 73 men, 56%), 65 were allocated to each arm. The median GI-2 was 1 day shorter with pyridostigmine compared with placebo (2 (i.q.r. 1-3) versus 3 (2-4) days; P = 0.015). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative ileus (17.2 versus 21.5%; P = 0.532) or duration of hospital stay (median 5 (i.q.r. 4-8.75) versus 5 (4-7.5) days; P = 0.921). Similarly, there were no significant differences in overall complications, anastomotic leak, cardiac complications, or patient-reported side effects. CONCLUSION: Pyridostigmine resulted in a quicker return of GI-2 and was well tolerated. Larger multicentre studies are required to determine the optimal dosing and evaluate the impact of pyridostigmine in different surgical settings. Registration number: ACTRN12621000530820 (https://anzctr.org.au).

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.

Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction After Neuromuscular Blockade Reversal With Sugammadex Versus Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (POGD) commonly occurs following gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and is associated with specific anesthetic agents. Cholinesterase inhibitors employed for reversing neuromuscular blockade have been implicated in development of POGD. Sugammadex, a novel reversal agent, is linked with reduced POGD. However, there is a lack of comprehensive comparative review between these agents regarding their impact on POGD following GI surgery. This study aims to systematically review the effects of sugammadex on POGD compared to cholinesterase inhibitors following GI surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched as of July 2022 to identify articles comparing sugammadex with cholinesterase inhibitors in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, specifically in relation to POGD. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, readmission rates, pulmonary complications, and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: From 198 citations, 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 3 retrospective cohorts with 717 patients receiving sugammadex and 812 patients receiving cholinesterase inhibitors were included. Significantly lower rates of prolonged postoperative ileus (OR .44, 95% CI .25-.77, P < .05, I2 = 56%, low certainty evidence) was observed with sugammadex. No significant difference in any other outcome was observed. Narrative review of readmission data demonstrated no significant difference. CONCLUSION: The use of sugammadex following gastrointestinal surgery is associated with significantly lower rates of prolonged postoperative ileus compared to cholinesterase inhibitors. However, these do not translate into a significant reduction in length of stay, morbidity, or postoperative nausea and vomiting. Results are limited by the numer of studies included and missing data, more robust RCTs are needed before recommendations can be made.

Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine for Reversal of Neuromuscular Blockade in Patients With Severe Renal Impairment: A Randomized, Double-Blinded Study.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex is not advised for patients with severe renal impairment, but has been shown in a variety of other populations to be superior to neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. The objective of this study was to determine if reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex versus reversal of cisatracurium-induced neuromuscular blockade with neostigmine results in a faster return to a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) ≥90% in patients with severe renal impairment. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled trial at a large county hospital. A total of 49 patients were enrolled. Inclusion criteria included patients age ≥18, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status III and IV, with a creatinine clearance <30 mL/min, undergoing general anesthesia with expected surgical duration ≥2 hours and necessitating neuromuscular blockade. Subjects received either cisatracurium 0.2 mg/kg or rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg for induction of anesthesia to facilitate tracheal intubation. Subjects were kept at moderate neuromuscular blockade during surgery and received either 2 mg/kg sugammadex or 50 µg/kg neostigmine with 10 µg/kg glycopyrrolate for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. Neuromuscular monitoring was performed with electromyography (TwitchView), and the TOFR was recorded every minute after administration of the reversal agent. The time from administration of neuromuscular reversal until the patient reached a TOFR ≥90% was recorded as the primary outcome. RESULTS: The mean time to recovery of TOFR ≥90% was significantly faster with sugammadex at 3.5 (±1.6) min compared with neostigmine at 14.8 (±6.1) min ( P < .0001; mean difference, 11.3 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.0-13.5 minutes). There were no major adverse events in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe renal impairment, neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium followed by reversal with sugammadex provides a significantly faster return of neuromuscular function compared to cisatracurium and neostigmine, without any major adverse effects.

Polyphenol-enriched Desmodium elegans DC. ameliorate scopolamine-induced amnesia in animal model of Alzheimer's disease: In Vitro, In Vivo and In Silico approaches.

The current study aims to quantify HPLC-DAD polyphenolics in the crude extracts of Desmodium elegans, evaluating its cholinesterase inhibitory, antioxidant, molecular docking and protective effects against scopolamine-induced amnesia in mice. A total of 16 compounds were identified which include gallic acid (239 mg g-1), p-hydroxybenzoic acid (11.2 mg g-1), coumaric acid (10.0 mg g-1), chlorogenic acid (10.88 mg g-1), caffeic acid (13.9 mg g-1), p-coumaroylhexose (41.2 mg g-1), 3-O-caffeoylquinic acid (22.4 mg g-1), 4-O-caffeoylquinic acid (6.16 mg g-1), (+)-catechin (71.34 mg g-1), (-)-catechin (211.79 mg g-1), quercetin-3-O-glucuronide (17.9 mg g-1), kaempferol-7-O-glucuronide (13.2 mg g-1), kaempferol-7-O-rutinoside (53.67 mg g-1), quercetin-3-rutinoside (12.4 mg g-1), isorhamnetin-7-O-glucuronide (17.6 mg g-1) and isorhamnetin-3-O-rutinoside (15.0 mg g-1). In a DPPH free radical scavenging assay, the chloroform fraction showed the highest antioxidant activity, with an IC50 value of 31.43 µg mL-1. In an AChE inhibitory assay, the methanolic and chloroform fractions showed high inhibitory activities causing 89% and 86.5% inhibitions with IC50 values of 62.34 and 47.32 µg mL-1 respectively. In a BChE inhibition assay, the chloroform fraction exhibited 84.36% inhibition with IC50 values of 45.98 µg mL-1. Furthermore, molecular docking studies revealed that quercetin-3-rutinoside and quercetin-3-O-glucuronide fit perfectly in the active sites of AChE and BChE respectively. Overall, the polyphenols identified exhibited good efficacy, which is likely as a result of the compounds' electron-donating hydroxyl groups (-OH) and electron cloud density. The administration of methanolic extract improved cognitive performance and demonstrated anxiolytic behavior among tested animals.

The impact of rivastigmine on post-surgical delirium and cognitive impairment; a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute and transient disorder of brain function that often occurs in post-surgical patients. Rivastigmine is a cholinesterase inhibitor drug that has been proposed as an adjuvant drug in recent years, still, despite significant theoretical evidence, few clinical studies have been performed on its impact on delirium. AIM: Due to the widespread use of cholinesterase inhibitors in pediatric and adult surgery, the present study aims to investigate the impact of Rivastigmine as a cholinesterase inhibitor on delirium after radical surgery. METHODS: In this randomized double-blind clinical trial, a hundred recruited patients were randomly assigned to either Rivastigmine (n = 50) or placebo (n = 50) groups, and we measured post-operative impact on delirium, by Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score, and cognitive impairment, by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Our univariate and multivariate logistical regression models assessed this hypothesized impact. RESULTS: Treatment with Rivastigmine was significantly associated with reduced day one post-op delirium, as measured by CAM score (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.97, p = 0.05), and cognitive impairment, as measured by MMSE (OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.59, p = 0.0022). These associations became stronger after controlling for age, blood loss, and post-op blood sodium levels: Delirium (OR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.92, p = 0.05), cognitive impairment (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42, p = 0.000178). CONCLUSION: The significant result of our randomized clinical trial is that pre-op Rivastigmine treatment may be associated with a substantial drop in patients experiencing post-op delirium and post-op cognitive impairment.

Therapeutic dilemmas: cognitive enhancers and risk of falling in older adults-a clinical review.

PURPOSE: Cognitive enhancers are the primary pharmacological therapy prescribed to those with dementia, comprising of memantine and the acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs). The long-term cognitive and behavioural benefits of these medications, as well as their potential contribution to falls is currently debated, with recent Delphi studies being unable to reach consensus on whether these medications should be deprescribed. In this narrative clinical review, as part of a series on deprescribing in people at risk of falls, we explore the potential falls-related side effects experienced in people taking cognitive enhancers, alongside situations where deprescribing may be appropriate. METHODS: We undertook a literature search of PubMed and Google Scholar, using terms capturing falls and cognitive enhancers, as well as consulting the British National Formulary and published Summary of Medicinal Product Characteristics. These searches informed the subsequent clinical review. RESULTS: Cognitive enhancers should be subject to regular review, including confirmation of appropriate treatment indication, and occurrence of side effects in the context of falls. AChEIs, in particular, are associated with a broad range of side effects that can contribute to increased falls risk. These include bradycardia, syncope and neuromuscular effects. Where these have been identified, deprescribing should be considered, as well as alternative treatment options. Deprescribing studies have shown mixed results, likely due to considerable methodological heterogeneity. Several suggested guidelines exist to aid deprescribing decisions, many of which are highlighted in this review. CONCLUSIONS: The use of cognitive enhancers should be regularly reviewed and decisions to deprescribe made on a case-by-case basis, considering both the risks and benefits of stopping these medications.

Sugammadex Is Associated With Reduced Pulmonary Complications in Patients With Respiratory Dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Use of sugammadex is associated with fewer postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). This study investigated the relationship between sugammadex and PPCs in specific patients with respiratory dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the electronic medical and anesthesia records of patients with respiratory dysfunction who underwent laparoscopic gastric or intestinal surgery at a single center between May 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. The patients were divided into the sugammadex group and the nonsugammadex group, based on whether they received sugammadex or neostigmine. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to characterize the differences in incidence of PPC. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients were included, of which 46 patients (41.1%) received sugammadex. In the logistic regression analysis, the incidences of PPC were fewer in the sugammadex group. Postoperative fever (odds ratio [OR] 0.330; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.137-0.793, P = 0.0213), postoperative intensive care unit admission (OR 0.204; 95% CI 0.065-0.644, P = 0.007), cough (OR 0.143; 95% CI 0.061- 0.333, P < 0.001), pleural effusion (all) (OR: 0.280; 95% CI 0.104- 0.759, P = 0.012), pleural effusion (massive) (OR: 0.142; 95% CI 0.031- 0.653, P = 0.012), and difficulty in breathing (OR: 0.111; 95% CI 0.014-0.849, P = 0.039) showed significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex is associated with a reduction in PPC in patients with respiratory dysfunction.

Postoperative oxygenation assessed by SpO2/FiO2 ratio and respiratory complications after reversal of neuromuscular block with Sugammadex or neostigmine: A retrospective cohort study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Residual neuromuscular block may lead to postoperative muscle weakness, inadequate oxygenation, and other pulmonary complications. Sugammadex may provide more rapid and effective restoration of neuromuscular function than neostigmine. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that noncardiac surgical patients given sugammadex oxygenate better during initial recovery than those given neostigmine. Secondarily, we tested the hypothesis that patients given sugammadex have fewer pulmonary complications during hospitalization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Postoperative recovery area of a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Adults who had non-cardiothoracic surgery and were given either neostigmine or sugammadex. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the lowest SpO2/FiO2 ratio in the post-anesthesia care unit. The secondary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications. MAIN RESULTS: Among 71,457 cases, 10,708 (15%) were given sugammadex and 60,749 (85%) received neostigmine. After propensity weighting, the mean minimum SpO2/FiO2 ratio was 301 ± 77 (SD) in patients given sugammadex and 303 ± 71 in those given neostigmine, yielding an estimated difference in means of -3.5 (95% confidence interval: -5.3, -1.7; P = 0.0002). 4.4% of patients given sugammadex and 3.6% of patients given neostigmine had postoperative pulmonary complications (P = 0.0005, number-needed-to-be-exposed =136; 95% CI: 83, 330), with the main contributing components being new bronchospasm or exacerbation of obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative minimum SpO2/FiO2 ratio during PACU admission was similar after reversal of neuromuscular block by sugammadex and neostigmine. Reversal with sugammadex was associated with more pulmonary complications, but most were minor and of little consequence.

Perioperative neuromuscular blockade. 2020 update of the SEDAR (Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación) recommendations.

We present an update of the 2020 Recommendations on neuromuscular blockade of the SEDAR. The previous ones dated 2009. A modified Delphi consensus analysis (experts, working group, and previous extensive bibliographic revision) 10 recommendations were produced1: neuromuscular blocking agents were recommended for endotracheal intubation and to avoid faringo-laryngeal and tracheal lesions, including critical care patients.2 We recommend not to use neuromuscular blocking agents for routine insertion of supraglotic airway devices, and to use it only in cases of airway obstruction or endotracheal intubation through the device.3 We recommend to use a rapid action neuromuscular blocking agent with an hypnotic in rapid sequence induction of anesthesia.4 We recommend profound neuromuscular block in laparoscopic surgery.5 We recommend quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular blockade during the whole surgical procedure, provided neuromuscular blocking agents have been used.6 We recommend quantitative monitoring through ulnar nerve stimulation and response evaluation of the adductor pollicis brevis, acceleromyography being the clinical standard.7 We recommend a recovery of neuromuscular block of at least TOFr ≥ 0.9 to avoid postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade.8 We recommend drug reversal of neuromuscular block at the end of general anesthetic, before extubation, provided a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been reached.9 We recommend to choose anticholinesterases for neuromuscular block reversal only if TOF≥2 and a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been attained.10 We recommend to choose sugammadex instead of anticholinesterases for reversal of neuromuscular blockade induced with rocuronium.

Postoperative Risk of Transfusion After Reversal of Residual Neuromuscular Block With Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex and neostigmine are routinely used to reverse residual neuromuscular blocks at the end of surgery. Sugammadex has been linked with prolongation of laboratory coagulation markers, but clinical relevance on postoperative blood loss and transfusions remains unclear. METHODS: In this retrospective, single-center, cohort study, we analyzed medical records of adult patients having noncardiac surgery who were given sugammadex or neostigmine from May 2016 to December 2020. Our primary outcome was the incidence of any postoperative transfusion of red blood cells, and/or fresh-frozen plasma, and/or platelets. Secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalization, need for resurgery, and postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admission. After propensity score weighting, the odds ratio (OR) for postoperative transfusion was assessed in both groups (sugammadex versus neostigmine) using a generalized estimation equation to count within-subject correlation weighted by the inverse propensity score. RESULTS: Out of 39,325 eligible surgeries, 33,903 surgeries in 29,062 patients were included in the analysis; with 4581 patients receiving sugammadex and 29,322 patients receiving neostigmine. The raw incidence of postoperative transfusion was 7.40% in sugammadex and 7.45% in the neostigmine group. After weighting by propensity score, the incidence of postoperative transfusion was 8.01% in the sugammadex and 7.38% in the neostigmine group (OR, 1.11 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.26; P = .118]). There was no difference in duration of hospitalization and need for resurgery, but odds of postoperative ICU admission were significantly higher for patients receiving sugammadex than those receiving neostigmine (OR, 1.33 [98.33% CI, 1.17-1.52; P < .0001]). Our a priori planned analysis of coagulation laboratory parameters could not be completed because of a high amount of missing laboratory data. CONCLUSIONS: There is no statistically significant nor clinically important difference in the risk of postoperative transfusion in patients receiving sugammadex or neostigmine.

Routine administration of neostigmine after recovery of spontaneous breathing versus neuromuscular monitor-guided administration of neostigmine in pediatric patients: a parallel, randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Neostigmine used to reverse the muscle relaxants should be guided by neuromuscular monitoring, as the degree of spontaneous pre-reversal recovery is the key to success to reverse the neuromuscular block. But neuromuscular monitoring is not always available for some patients during anesthesia and, in consequence, we need to use other clinical judgment to guide the use of neostigmine to reverse the neuromuscular block. In this trial, we aimed to evaluate the incidence of residual neuromuscular blockade (rNMB) in pediatric patients with routine use of neostigmine after recovery of spontaneous breathing compared with the patients with the use of neostigmine guided by neuromuscular monitoring. METHODS: A parallel, randomized, controlled noninferiority study was conducted. We enrolled aged 3 months to 12 years old patients who underwent inguinal hernia repair under general anesthesia. The enrolled patients were randomly divided into experimental and control groups. After surgery, children in the experimental group were given 0.02 mg/kg neostigmine after recovery of spontaneous breathing. Children in the control group were given 0.02 mg/kg neostigmine when the train-of-four (TOF) ratio was between 0.4 and 0.9. However, no neostigmine was administered if the TOF ratio was higher than 0.9. The primary outcome was the incidence of rNMB after extubation (TOF ratio < 0.9). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of neostigmine-induced muscle paralysis, end of surgery - extubation interval, end of surgery - exit OR interval, the length of stay in the PACU, the incidence of hypoxia in the PACU, the number of children who required assisted ventilation during the PACU stay, and neostigmine-related adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 120 children were included in this study, with 60 in the experimental group and 60 in the control group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of rNMB after extubation between the groups (45/60 vs 44/60, RR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.26], p = 0.84). There was no neostigmine-induced muscle paralysis in either group. Adverse events were similar occurred in both groups. However, time from end of the surgery to leaving the operating room was earlier in the experimental group than in the control group (13.6 ± 5.2 vs 15.7 ± 5.6 min, MD -2.10 min [95% CI, -3.70 to -0.50], p = 0.04). The risk ratio of the incidence of TOF ratio < 0.3 for the experimental group was 31.12 (95%CI, 1.89 to 512.61) compared with the control group (12/60 vs 0/60, p = 0.00) in exploratory analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery of spontaneous breathing could be used as a substitute of neuromuscular monitoring to guide neostigmine use in pediatric patients following minor surgeries. However, care should be taken for the residual neuromuscular block. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-IOR-17012890. Registered on 5 October 2017.

The effects of sugammadex vs. neostigmine on postoperative respiratory complications and advanced healthcare utilisation: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

Reversing neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex can eliminate residual paralysis, which has been associated with postoperative respiratory complications. There are equivocal data on whether sugammadex reduces these when compared with neostigmine. We investigated the association of the choice of reversal drug with postoperative respiratory complications and advanced healthcare utilisation. We included adult patients who underwent surgery and received general anaesthesia with sugammadex or neostigmine reversal at two academic healthcare networks between January 2016 and June 2021. The primary outcome was postoperative respiratory complications, defined as post-extubation oxygen saturation < 90%, respiratory failure requiring non-invasive ventilation, or tracheal re-intubation within 7 days. Our main secondary outcome was advanced healthcare utilisation, a composite outcome including: 7-day unplanned intensive care unit admission; 30-day hospital readmission; or non-home discharge. In total, 5746 (6.9%) of 83,250 included patients experienced postoperative respiratory complications. This was not associated with the reversal drug (adjusted OR (95%CI) 1.01 (0.94-1.08); p = 0.76). After excluding patients admitted from skilled nursing facilities, 8372 (10.5%) patients required advanced healthcare utilisation, which was not associated with the choice of reversal (adjusted OR (95%CI) 0.95 (0.89-1.01); p = 0.11). Equivalence testing supported an equivalent effect size of sugammadex and neostigmine on both outcomes, and neostigmine was non-inferior to sugammadex with regard to postoperative respiratory complications or advanced healthcare utilisation. Finally, there was no association between the reversal drug and major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted OR 1.07 (0.94-1.21); p = 0.32). Compared with neostigmine, reversal of neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex was not associated with a reduction in postoperative respiratory complications or post-procedural advanced healthcare utilisation.

Association between choice of reversal agent for neuromuscular block and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients at increased risk undergoing non-emergency surgery: STIL-STRONGER, a multicentre matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications are a source of morbidity after major surgery. In patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications we sought to assess the association between neuromuscular blocking agent reversal agent and development of postoperative pulmonary complications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study, a secondary analysis of data collected in the prior STRONGER study. Data were obtained from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group. Included patients were aged 18 yr and older undergoing non-emergency surgery under general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation with neuromuscular block and reversal, who were predicted to be at elevated risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. This risk was defined as American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status 3 or 4 in patients undergoing either intrathoracic or intra-abdominal surgery who were either aged >80 yr or underwent a procedure lasting >2 h. Cohorts were defined by reversal with neostigmine or sugammadex. The primary composite outcome was the occurrence of pneumonia or respiratory failure. RESULTS: After matching by institution, sex, age (within 5 yr), body mass index, anatomic region of surgery, comorbidities, and neuromuscular blocking agent, 3817 matched pairs remained. The primary postoperative pulmonary complications outcome occurred in 224 neostigmine cases vs 100 sugammadex cases (5.9% vs 2.6%, odds ratio 0.41, P<0.01). After adjustment for unbalanced covariates, the adjusted odds ratio for the association between sugammadex use and the primary outcome was 0.39 (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients at increased risk for pulmonary complications compared with neostigmine, use of sugammadex was independently associated with reduced risk of subsequent development of pneumonia or respiratory failure.

How robust are the STRONGER and STIL-STRONGER studies?

In 2020, the Sugammadex vs Neostigmine for Reversal of Neuromuscular Blockade and Postoperative Pulmonary Complications (STRONGER) study provided evidence for the first time that use of sugammadex is associated with fewer postoperative pulmonary complications than use of neostigmine. In a recent publication in the British Journal of Anaesthesia, a secondary analysis of the same data, the Association Between Neuromuscular Blockade Reversal Agent Choice and Postoperative Pulmonary Complications (STIL-STRONGER) study, has produced similar evidence of the advantages of sugammadex over neostigmine in high-risk and older patients undergoing prolonged, elective surgery. Here we consider the implications of the detailed statistical analysis used in these two studies and how its limitations could possibly have enhanced the statistical differences between the two drugs with respect to postoperative pulmonary complications.

Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine for Neuromuscular Block Reversal and Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Resection of Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the effect of sugammadex and neostigmine on neuromuscular block reversal and the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing lung cancer resection. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, prospective study. SETTING: A single major urban teaching and university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred adult patients underwent elective radical resection of lung cancer under general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned into neostigmine (0.05 mg/kg) + atropine 0.02 mg/kg group and sugammadex (2 mg/kg) group. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes were the incidence of any postoperative pulmonary complications, and the time to achieve 90% of train-of-four (TOF) after the administration of sugammadex or neostigmine. The secondary endpoints were the number of patients with TOF ratio (TOFr) <0.9 at the time of tracheal extubation, the incidence of readmission 30 days after discharge, and specific postoperative pulmonary complications. Results showed that the average time of recovery to TOFr ≥0.9 with sugammadex was 164.5 ± 27.7 seconds versus 562.9 ± 59.7 seconds with neostigmine + atropine treatment. Fewer sugammadex-treated patients did not achieve TOFr of 0.9 at the time of tracheal extubation than did neostigmine-treated participants. Patients in the sugammadex group had lower incidence of postoperative lung complications, and shorter durations of postanesthesia care unit stay and postoperative hospital stay than those in the neostigmine group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of readmission between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of sugammadex provided faster recovery of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block when compared with neostigmine. Moreover, for patients undergoing lung cancer resection, administration of sugammadex could reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications and duration of postoperative hospital stay.

EVALUATION OF THE EFFICIENCY OF ALPHA-LIPOIC ACID AND IPIDACRINE HYDROCHLORIDE FOR THE PREVENTION OF PACLITAXEL-INDUCED PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY ACCORDING TO THE TOTAL NEUROPATHY SCORE.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of combination of alpha-lipoic acid and acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (ipidacrine hydrochloride) to prevent the development and improve the course of paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy (PIPN) in patients with breast cancer according to the Total Neuropathy Score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 32 patients with breast cancer T1-4N0-3M0 received six cycles of polychemotherapy according to the AT scheme (paclitaxel, doxorubicin) or ET scheme (paclitaxel, epirubicin). Patients were randomized into two groups - without (group I) or with (group II) medication for prevention of neuropathy. A comprehensive neurological examination of patients was performed according to all ten parameters of the Total Neuropathy Score before chemotherapy, and after third and sixth cycles of chemotherapy. Each parameter was evaluated from 0 (no deficit) to 4 (no function/the most severe deficit). The scores obtained from the scale were summarized to obtain a total score from 0 to 40. RESULTS: The use of alpha-lipoic acid in combination with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (ipidacrine hydrochloride) significantly reduces the symptoms and severity of PIPN. The manifestations of PIPN in patients of the control group were significantly more severe compared to the group in which the study drugs were used. The average severity of neuropathy after 3 and 6 cycles was 1.75 and 2.62 in group I, and 1.12 and 1.62 - in group II, respectively (improvement by 15.75% (p < 0.05) and 25.00% (p < 0.001) after 3 and 6 cycles). CONCLUSIONS: Proposed combination of alpha-lipoic acid and ipidacrine hydrochloride led to a statistically significant reduction in the severity of PIPN, and thus to improvement of the functional capacity and quality of life of patients.

Association between long-term usage of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and lung cancer in the elderly: a nationwide cohort study.

This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the association between acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEI) usage and the risk of lung cancer. Data from 116,106 new users of AChEI and 348,318, at a ratio of 1:3, matched by age, sex, and index-year, between 2000 and 2015 controls were obtained from the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database in this cohort study. The Cox regression model was used to compare the risk of lung cancer. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of lung cancer for AChEI users was 1.198 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.765-1.774, p = 0.167). However, the adjusted HR for patients aged ≥ 65 was adjusted to HR: 1.498 (95% CI = 1.124-1.798, p < 0.001), in contrast to the comparison groups. In addition, patients with comorbidities such as pneumonia, bronchiectasis, pneumoconiosis, pulmonary alveolar pneumonopathy, hypertension, stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, depression, anxiety, smoking-related diseases, dementia, and seeking medical help from medical centers and regional hospitals, were associated with a higher risk in lung cancer. Furthermore, longer-term usage of rivastigmine (366-730 days, ≥ 731 days) and galantamine (≥ 731 days) was associated with the risk of lung cancer. AChEI increased the risk of lung cancer in the older aged patients, several comorbidities, and a longer-term usage of rivastigmine and galantamine. Therefore, physicians should estimate the risks and benefits of AChEI usage and avoid prescribing antidepressants concurrently.

Half-Dose Sugammadex After Neostigmine Versus Neostigmine as a Routine Reversal Agent: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The use of sugammadex at a lower dose after a routine reversal dose of neostigmine may prevent residual neuromuscular blockade (rNMB). Our goal was to investigate the effects of the use of half-dose sugammadex for reversing rNMB after administration of neostigmine, and compare these effects to a routine full-dose of neostigmine. DESIGN: Prospective, single-blinded, randomized trial. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients having lower abdominal tumor resection surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into two groups. Group N (Neostigmine) (n = 48) patients received standard reversal dose of intravenous neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg and atropine 0.02 mg/kg before extubationl Group N + S (Neostigmine + Sugammadex) (n = 50) patients received 1 mg/kg of intravenous sugammadex three minutes after a standard neostigmine reversal dose. The primary end-point was the incidence of a train-of-four (TOF) ratio less than 0.9 at tracheal extubation. Secondary end-points were periods between the start of administration of reversal agents and extubation or operating room discharge in minutes to achieve recovery of TOF ratio < 0.9 to 0.7 and TOF ratio ≥ 0.9. FINDINGS: The demographic data were not different between the two groups (P > .005). The incidence of rNMB presented as TOF ratio < 0.9 to 0.7 was present in 52% of Group N patients compared to 8% in Group N + S patients (P < .0001). The time to recovery between administering reversal and extubation as well as operating room discharge in Group N were; 18.52 ± 6.34 minutes and 23.27 ± 6.95 minutes, respectively, whereas; in Group N + S, they were; 12.86 ± 5.05 and 17.82 ± 4.99 minutes, respectively. (P < .0001, P < .0001, respectively). Adverse events were similar between groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: A half-dose sugammadex (1 mg/kg) after full-dose reversal of neostigmine provides a lower incidence of rNMB and shorter recovery times as compared to full-dose neostigmine reversal agent. This practice is safe and effective in case of rNMB.

Sugammadex in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, reversal of neuromuscular blocking agents following the completion of surgery was achieved with cholinesterase inhibitors. Recently, sugammadex has been increasingly relied upon. Sugammadex is a γ-cyclodextrin molecule that rapidly reverses steroidal neuromuscular blocking drugs. Its use following colorectal surgery has become more common, and while the rapidity of reversal is undoubtedly improved, whether sugammadex impacts clinical postoperative outcomes is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare postoperative outcomes in patients receiving sugammadex to those receiving a control during colorectal surgery. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared sugammadex with a control (e.g., neostigmine, pyridostigmine, placebo) in patients undergoing colorectal surgery in terms of total hospital length of stay and frequency of postoperative adverse respiratory events. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed. RESULTS: From 269 citations, five studies with 535 patients receiving sugammadex (45.8% female; mean age: 64.4) and 569 patients receiving a control (45.0% female; mean age: 64.3) were included. There was no significant difference in length of stay between the two groups (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.25, P = 0.95). The risk of adverse respiratory events postoperatively was similar between the two groups (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.81-2.19, P = 0.25). CONCLUSION: There are no current data to suggest an improvement in postoperative outcomes with the use of sugammadex in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. This study is limited by the number of included studies. Further prospective studies comparing sugammadex and a control in colorectal surgery is required.