Comparison of the effects of sugammadex versus neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular block on hospital costs of care.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex reversal of neuromuscular block facilitates recovery of neuromuscular function after surgery, but the drug is expensive. We evaluated the effects of sugammadex on hospital costs of care. METHODS: We analysed 79 474 adult surgical patients who received neuromuscular blocking agents and reversal from two academic healthcare networks between 2016 and 2021 to calculate differences in direct costs. We matched our data with data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) to calculate differences in total costs in US dollars. Perioperative risk profiles were defined based on ASA physical status and admission status (ambulatory surgery vs hospitalisation). RESULTS: Based on our registry data analysis, administration of sugammadex vs neostigmine was associated with lower direct costs (-1.3% lower costs; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to -2.2%; P=0.002). In the HCUP-NIS matched cohort, sugammadex use was associated with US$232 lower total costs (95% CI, -US$376 to -US$88; P=0.002). Subgroup analysis revealed that sugammadex was associated with US$1042 lower total costs (95% CI, -US$1198 to -US$884; P<0.001) in patients with lower risk. In contrast, sugammadex was associated with US$620 higher total costs (95% CI, US$377 to US$865; P<0.001) in patients with a higher risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥3 and preoperative hospitalisation). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of using sugammadex on costs of care depend on patient risk, defined based on comorbidities and admission status. We observed lower costs of care in patients with lower risk and higher costs of care in hospitalised surgical patients with severe comorbidities.

Sugammadex versus neostigmine for routine reversal of rocuronium block in adult patients: A cost analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN: Cost analysis. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Assessment of the effects of sugammadex on coagulation profiles using thromboelastographic parameters.

This study evaluated the effects of sugammadex at conventional doses of 2 and 4 mg/kg on the coagulation profile by analyzing thromboelastographic parameters and performing a traditional laboratory coagulation analysis. A total of 100 patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery were enrolled. The patients were randomly divided into the 2 mg and 4 mg groups. The laboratory coagulation test and thromboelastographic analysis were performed before and 15 min after administering sugammadex. Prothrombin time (PT) was significantly prolonged after sugammadex administration than before it in intragroup comparisons of the 2 mg group (12.8 ± 0.6 s vs. 13.6 ± 0.7 s, p < 0.001) and the 4 mg group (13.0 ± 0.5 s vs. 13.7 ± 0.5 s, p < 0.001). R time, derived from thromboelastography, was also significantly prolonged after sugammadex administration (4.7 ± 1.8 min vs. 5.8 ± 2.1 min, p = 0.005). In conclusion, the conventional doses of 2 or 4 mg/kg sugammadex prolonged PT. Sugammadex 4 mg/kg also prolonged R time, although the value was within the normal range. Therefore, physicians should be cautious with the higher sugammadex dose, particularly in patients with a high risk of bleeding because the higher dose was associated with less coagulation.Trial registration: KCT0002133 (https://cris.nih.go.kr).