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.

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.

Use of Sugammadex in Patients With Obesity: A Pooled Analysis.

A growing proportion of patients undergoing surgical procedures are obese, providing anesthesiologists with numerous challenges for patient management. The current pooled analysis evaluated recovery times following sugammadex reversal of neuromuscular blockade by body mass index (BMI) in general, and in particular, in patients with BMIs ≥30 kg/m (defined as obese) and <30 kg/m (defined as non-obese). Data were pooled from 27 trials evaluating recommended sugammadex doses for reversal of moderate [reappearance of the second twitch of the train-of-four (TOF); sugammadex 2 mg/kg] or deep (1-2 post-tetanic counts or 15 minutes after rocuronium; sugammadex 4 mg/kg) rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. All doses of sugammadex were administered based on actual body weight. The recovery time from sugammadex administration to a TOF ratio ≥0.9 was the primary efficacy variable in all individual studies and in the pooled analysis. This analysis comprised a total of 1418 adult patients treated with sugammadex; 267 (18.8%) of these patients had a BMI ≥30 kg/m. The average time to recovery of the TOF ratio to 0.9 was 1.9 minutes for rocuronium-induced blockade and 3.0 minutes for vecuronium-induced blockade. No clinically relevant correlation was observed between BMI and recovery time. The recommended sugammadex doses based on actual body weight provide rapid recovery from neuromuscular blockade in both obese and non-obese patients; no dose adjustments are required in the obese patient.

Neuronal Effects of Sugammadex in combination with Rocuronium or Vecuronium.

Rocuronium (ROC) and Vecuronium (VEC) are the most currently used steroidal non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking (MNB) agents. Sugammadex (SUG) rapidly reverses steroidal NMB agents after anaesthesia. The present study was conducted in order to evaluate neuronal effects of SUG alone and in combination with both ROC and VEC. Using MTT, CASP-3 activity and Western-blot we determined the toxicity of SUG, ROC or VEC in neurons in primary culture. SUG induces apoptosis/necrosis in neurons in primary culture and increases cytochrome C (CytC), apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF), Smac/Diablo and Caspase 3 (CASP-3) protein expression. Our results also demonstrated that both ROC and VEC prevent these SUG effects. The protective role of both ROC and VEC could be explained by the fact that SUG encapsulates NMB drugs. In BBB impaired conditions it would be desirable to control SUG doses to prevent the excess of free SUG in plasma that may induce neuronal damage. A balance between SUG, ROC or VEC would be necessary to prevent the risk of cell damage.

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).

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.

Diaphragmatic and intercostal electromyographic activity during neostigmine, sugammadex and neostigmine-sugammadex-enhanced recovery after neuromuscular blockade: A randomised controlled volunteer study.

BACKGROUND: Electromyographic activity of the diaphragm (EMGdi) during weaning from mechanical ventilation is increased after sugammadex compared with neostigmine. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of neostigmine on EMGdi and surface EMG (sEMG) of the intercostal muscles during antagonism of rocuronium block with neostigmine, sugammadex and neostigmine followed by sugammadex. DESIGN: Randomised, controlled, double-blind study. SETTING: Intensive care research unit. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen male volunteers. INTERVENTIONS: A transoesophageal EMGdi recorder was inserted into three groups of six anaesthetised study participants, and sEMG was recorded on their intercostal muscles. To reverse rocuronium, volunteers received 50 µg kg neostigmine, 2 mg kg sugammadex or 50 µg kg neostigmine, followed 3 min later by 2 mg kg sugammadex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined the EMGdi and sEMG at the intercostal muscles during recovery enhanced by neostigmine or sugammadex or neostigmine-sugammadex as primary outcomes. Secondary objectives were the tidal volume, PaO2 recorded between the onset of spontaneous breathing and extubation of the trachea and SpO2 during and after anaesthesia. RESULTS: During weaning, median peak EMGdi was 0.76 (95% confidence interval: 1.20 to 1.80) µV in the neostigmine group, 1.00 (1.23 to 1.82) µV in the sugammadex group and 0.70 (0.91 to 1.21) µV in the neostigmine-sugammadex group (P < 0.0001 with EMGdi increased after sugammadex vs. neostigmine and neostigmine-sugammadex). The median peak intercostal sEMG for the neostigmine group was 0.39 (0.65 to 0.93) µV vs. 0.77 (1.15 to 1.51) µV in the sugammadex group and 0.82 (1.28 to 2.38) µV in the neostigmine-sugammadex group (P < 0.0001 with sEMG higher after sugammadex and after neostigmine-sugammadex vs. neostigmine). CONCLUSION: EMGdi and sEMG on the intercostal muscles were increased after sugammadex alone compared with neostigmine. Adding sugammadex after neostigmine reduced the EMGdi compared with sugammadex alone. Unlike the diaphragm, intercostal EMG was preserved with neostigmine followed by sugammadex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2015-001278-16; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02403063.

Sugammadex at both high and low doses does not affect the depth of anesthesia or hemodynamics: a randomized double blind trial.

Previous studies have shown that sugammadex decreases the anesthetic depth when administered to reverse the neuromuscular blockade produced by rocuronium/vecuronium. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of sugammadex alone on anesthetic depth and hemodynamics. Sixty patients scheduled for abdominal surgery participated in the study. Anesthesia was induced with thiopental/fentanyl and maintained with N2O/oxygen and sevoflurane concentrations adjusted to maintain Entropy and Bispectral Index (BIS) values between 40 and 50. Cis-atracurium 0.2 mg/kg was administered for neuromuscular blockade which was monitored with a TOF-Watch® SX acceleromyograph. State entropy (SE), response entropy (RE), Bispectral Index (BIS), systolic (SAP) and diastolic blood pressure (DAP), heart rate (HR), SpO2, end-tidal CO2 and sevoflurane concentrations were recorded every 3 min intraoperatively. Sugammadex 2 mg/kg (Group-2), 4 mg/kg (Group-4) or 16 mg/kg (Group-16) was given intravenously when a count of two responses of the train-of-four (TOF) or a post-tetanic count (PTC) 1-3 appeared or when no response at all (PTC = 0) was observed, respectively. The overall SE values, thus the primary outcome of the study, were 44 ± 11, 43 ± 10 and 43 ± 11 for Group-2, Group-4 and Group-16, respectively (p = 0.812). Also, the secondary endpoints, namely RE, BIS, SAP and DAP, HR and SpO2 did not differ between the three groups. Comparisons between Group-2 versus Group-4, Group-2 versus Group-16 and Group-4 versus Group-16 showed no differences (p > 0.05) for all the studied variables. Sugammadex alone at low, medium or high clinical doses has no effect on anesthetic depth as assessed by Entropy and BIS or on hemodynamics.

A suspected case of rocuronium-sugammadex complex-induced anaphylactic shock after cesarean section.

An anaphylactic reaction during a cesarean section occurs rarely, and rocuronium is thought to be one of the common agents causing perioperative anaphylaxis. Here we report an anaphylactic shock after cesarean section that is suggested to be induced by the rocuronium-sugammadex complex. A 36-year-old primigravida underwent an elective cesarean section under general anesthesia due to placenta previa. While the operation was completed uneventfully, she developed anaphylactic shock following sugammadex administration. She was successfully managed with rapid treatments. Serum tryptase level was significantly elevated. Although sugammadex was first suspected to be the causative agent, the result of intradermal skin tests with sugammadex were negative. Surprisingly, a subsequent intradermal test with undiluted rocuronium caused the patient to fall into a state of shock. Furthermore, a later skin-prick test with pre-mixed rocuronium-sugammadex complex also revealed a strong positive reaction, and a test with only rocuronium showed negative. We finally concluded that the rocuronium-sugammadex complex is the causative agent in this case. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report suggesting anaphylaxis caused by the rocuronium-sugammadex complex. This case highlights the importance of appropriate examinations to determinate the pathogenesis of anaphylaxis in order to establish risk reduction strategies.

Anesthetic consideration for neuromuscular diseases.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to examine data relating to perioperative management of the patient with neuromuscular disorders RECENT FINDINGS: Patients with pre-existing neuromuscular disorders are at risk for a number of postoperative complications that are related to anesthetic drugs that are administered intraoperatively. Careful preoperative assessment is necessary to reduce morbidity and mortality. In particular, the risk of postoperative respiratory failure and need for long-term ventilation should be reviewed with patients. The use of succinylcholine should be avoided in muscular dystrophies, motor neuron diseases, and intrinsic muscle disease due to a risk of malignant hyperthermia, hyperkalemia, rhabdomyolysis, and cardiac arrest. The use of quantitative neuromuscular monitoring should be strongly considered whenever nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents are administered. A number of case series and reports have been recently published demonstrating that sugammadex can be safely used in patients with neuromuscular disease; the risk of residual neuromuscular is nearly eliminated when this agent is administered intraoperatively. SUMMARY: Careful assessment and management of patients with underlying neuromuscular diseases is required to reduce postoperative complications. This article reviews the anesthetic implications of patients undergoing surgery with neuromuscular disorder.

Safety and Efficacy of Rocuronium With Sugammadex Reversal Versus Succinylcholine in Outpatient Surgery-A Multicenter, Randomized, Safety Assessor-Blinded Trial.

Complex surgical procedures are increasingly performed in an outpatient setting, with emphasis on rapid recovery and case turnover. In this study, the combination of rocuronium for neuromuscular blockade (NMB) reversed by single-dose sugammadex was compared with succinylcholine followed by spontaneous recovery in outpatient surgery. This multicenter, randomized, safety assessor-blinded study enrolled adults undergoing a short elective outpatient surgical procedure requiring NMB and tracheal intubation. Patients were randomized to NMB with either rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg for tracheal intubation with incremental doses of rocuronium 0.15 mg/kg and subsequent reversal with sugammadex 4.0 mg/kg at 1-2 posttetanic counts or succinylcholine 1.0 mg/kg for intubation with spontaneous recovery. The primary efficacy end point was the time from sugammadex administration to recovery of the train-of-four ratio to 0.9; for succinylcholine, time from administration to recovery of the first twitch (T1) to 90% was assessed. From 167 patients enrolled, 150 received treatment. The all-subjects-treated population comprised 70 patients in the rocuronium-sugammadex group and 80 in the succinylcholine group. Geometric mean (95% confidence interval) time from the start of sugammadex administration to recovery of the train-of-four ratio to 0.9 was 1.8 (1.6-2.0) minutes. Geometric mean (95% confidence interval) time from succinylcholine administration to recovery of T1 to 90% was 10.8 (10.1-11.5) minutes. Health outcome variables were similar between the groups. Adverse events were reported in 87.1% and 93.8% of patients for rocuronium-sugammadex and succinylcholine, respectively. In conclusion, rocuronium for intubation followed by sugammadex for reversal of NMB offers a viable treatment option in outpatient surgery without prolonging recovery duration or jeopardizing safety.

Feasibility of a 'reversed' isolated forearm technique by regional antagonization of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The isolated forearm technique is used to monitor intraoperative awareness. However, this technique cannot be applied to patients who must be kept deeply paralysed for >1h, because the tourniquet preventing the neuromuscular blocking agent from paralysing the forearm must be deflated from time to time. To overcome this problem, we tested the feasibility of a 'reversed' isolated forearm technique. METHODS: Patients received rocuronium 0.6 mg kg(-1) i.v. to achieve muscle paralysis. A tourniquet was then inflated around one upper arm to prevent further blood supply to the forearm. Sugammadex was injected into a vein of this isolated forearm to antagonize muscle paralysis regionally. A dose titration of sugammadex to antagonize muscle paralysis in the isolated forearm was performed in 10 patients, and the effects of the selected dose were observed in 10 additional patients. RESULTS: The sugammadex dose required to antagonize muscle paralysis in the isolated forearm was 0.03 mg kg(-1) in 30 ml of 0.9% saline. Muscle paralysis was antagonized in the isolated forearm within 3.2 min in nine of 10 patients; the rest of the patients' bodies remained paralysed. Releasing the tourniquet 15 min later did not affect the train-of-four count in the isolated forearm but significantly increased the train-of-four count in the other arm by 7%. CONCLUSIONS: Regional antagonization of rocuronium-induced muscle paralysis using a sugammadex dose of 0.03 mg kg(-1) injected into an isolated forearm was feasible and did not have relevant systemic effects. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at EudraCT (ref. no. 2013-002164-53) before patient enrolment began.

The Effect of Intravenous Dexamethasone on Sugammadex Reversal Time in Children Undergoing Adenotonsillectomy.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone has been shown to cause inhibition of sugammadex reversal in functionally innervated human muscle cells. In this prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled study, we evaluated the effect of dexamethasone on the reversal time of sugammadex in children undergoing tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy. METHODS: We recruited 60 patients with ASA physical status I to II, between the ages of 3 and 8 years, scheduled for elective tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy. After the induction of anesthesia, patients in group D received IV dexamethasone at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg within a total volume of 5 mL saline, whereas patients in group S received only 5 mL IV saline as the control group. At the end of surgery, all patients were given a single bolus dose (2 mg/kg) of sugammadex at reappearance of T2. Demographic data, hemodynamic variables, time to recovery (a train-of-four ratio of 0.9), time to tracheal extubation, and adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS: There was no statistical significance between 2 groups in time to recovery and time to extubation. Time to recovery was 97.7 ± 23.9 seconds in group D and 91.1 ± 39.5 seconds in group S (P = 0.436; 95% confidence interval, -10.3 to 23.5). Time to extubation was 127.9 ± 23.2 seconds and 123.8 ± 38.7 seconds in group D and in group S, respectively (P = 0.612; 95% confidence interval, -11.9 to 20.05). CONCLUSIONS: IV dexamethasone, given after induction of anesthesia, at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg, does not substantively affect the reversal time of sugammadex in pediatric patients undergoing adenoidectomy and/or tonsillectomy.

Dexamethasone Does Not Inhibit Sugammadex Reversal After Rocuronium-Induced Neuromuscular Block.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex is a relatively new molecule that reverses neuromuscular block induced by rocuronium. The particular structure of sugammadex traps the cyclopentanoperhydrophenanthrene ring of rocuronium in its hydrophobic cavity. Dexamethasone shares the same steroidal structure with rocuronium. Studies in vitro have demonstrated that dexamethasone interacts with sugammadex, reducing its efficacy. In this study, we investigated the clinical relevance of this interaction and its influence on neuromuscular reversal. METHODS: In this retrospective case-control study, we analyzed data from 45 patients divided into 3 groups: dexamethasone after induction group (15 patients) treated with 8 mg dexamethasone as an antiemetic drug shortly after induction of anesthesia; dexamethasone before reversal group (15 patients) treated with dexamethasone just before sugammadex injection; and control group (15 patients) treated with 8 mg ondansetron. All groups received 0.6 mg/kg rocuronium at induction, 0.15 mg/kg rocuronium at train-of-four ratio (TOF) 2 for neuromuscular relaxation, and 2 mg/kg sugammadex for reversal at the end of the procedure at TOF2. Neuromuscular relaxation was monitored with a TOF-Watch® system. RESULTS: The control group had a recovery time of 154 ± 54 seconds (mean ± SD), the dexamethasone after induction group 134 ± 55 seconds, and the dexamethasone before reversal group 131 ± 68 seconds. The differences among groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.5141). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the use of dexamethasone as an antiemetic drug for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting does not interfere with reversal of neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex in patients undergoing elective surgery with general anesthesia in contrast to in vitro studies that support this hypothesis.

Low-Dose or High-Dose Rocuronium Reversed with Neostigmine or Sugammadex for Cesarean Delivery Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial of Time to Tracheal Intubation and Extubation.

BACKGROUND: Rocuronium for cesarean delivery under general anesthesia is an alternative to succinylcholine for rapid-sequence induction of anesthesia because of the availability of sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. However, there are no large well-controlled studies in women undergoing general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. The aim of this noninferiority trial was to determine whether rocuronium and sugammadex confer benefit in time to tracheal intubation (primary outcome) and other neuromuscular blockade outcomes compared with succinylcholine, rocuronium, and neostigmine in women undergoing general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. METHODS: We aimed to enroll all women undergoing general anesthesia for cesarean delivery in the 2 participating university hospitals (Brno, Olomouc, Czech Republic) in this single-blinded, randomized, controlled study. Women were randomly assigned to the ROC group (muscle relaxation induced with rocuronium 1 mg/kg and reversed with sugammadex 2-4 mg/kg) or the SUX group (succinylcholine 1 mg/kg for induction, rocuronium 0.3 mg/kg for maintenance, and neostigmine 0.03 mg/kg for reversal of the neuromuscular blockade). The interval from the end of propofol administration to tracheal intubation was the primary end point with a noninferiority margin of 20 seconds. We recorded intubating conditions (modified Viby-Mogensen score), neonatal outcome (Apgar score <7; umbilical artery pH), anesthesia complications, and subjective patient complaints 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS: We enrolled 240 parturients. The mean time to tracheal intubation was 2.9 seconds longer in the ROC group (95% confidence interval, -5.3 to 11.2 seconds), noninferior compared with the SUX group. Absence of laryngoscopy resistance was greater in the ROC than in the SUX groups (ROC, 87.5%; SUX, 74.2%; P = 0.019), but there were no differences in vocal cord position (P = 0.45) or intubation response (P = 0.31) between groups. No statistically significant differences in incidence of anesthesia complications or in neonatal outcome were found (10-minute Apgar score <7, P = 0.07; umbilical artery pH, P = 0.43). The incidence of postpartum myalgia was greater in the SUX group (ROC 0%; SUX 6.7%; P = 0.007). The incidence of subjective complaints was lower in the ROC group (ROC, 21.4%; SUX, 37.5%; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that rocuronium for rapid-sequence induction is noninferior for time to tracheal intubation and is accompanied by more frequent absence of laryngoscopy resistance and lower incidence of myalgia in comparison with succinylcholine for cesarean delivery under general anesthesia.

The Myth of Rescue Reversal in "Can't Intubate, Can't Ventilate" Scenarios.

BACKGROUND: An unanticipated difficult airway during induction of anesthesia can be a vexing problem. In the setting of can't intubate, can't ventilate (CICV), rapid recovery of spontaneous ventilation is a reasonable goal. The urgency of restoring ventilation is a function of how quickly a patient's hemoglobin oxygen saturation decreases versus how much time is required for the effects of induction drugs to dissipate, namely the duration of unresponsiveness, ventilatory depression, and neuromuscular blockade. It has been suggested that prompt reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex will allow respiratory activity to recover before significant arterial desaturation. Using pharmacologic simulation, we compared the duration of unresponsiveness, ventilatory depression, and neuromuscular blockade in normal, obese, and morbidly obese body sizes in this life-threatening CICV scenario. We hypothesized that although neuromuscular function could be rapidly restored with sugammadex, significant arterial desaturation will occur before the recovery from unresponsiveness and/or central ventilatory depression in obese and morbidly obese body sizes. METHODS: We used published models to simulate the duration of unresponsiveness and ventilatory depression using a common induction technique with predicted rates of oxygen desaturation in various size patients and explored to what degree rapid reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex might improve the return of spontaneous ventilation in CICV situations. RESULTS: Our simulations showed that the duration of neuromuscular blockade was longer with 1.0 mg/kg succinylcholine than with 1.2 mg/kg rocuronium followed 3 minutes later by 16 mg/kg sugammadex (10.0 vs 4.5 minutes). Once rocuronium neuromuscular blockade was completely reversed with sugammadex, the duration of hemoglobin oxygen saturation >90%, loss of responsiveness, and intolerable ventilatory depression (a respiratory rate of ≤4 breaths/min) were dependent on the body habitus and duration of oxygen administration. There is a high probability of intolerable ventilatory depression that extends well beyond the time when oxygen saturation decreases <90%, especially in obese and morbidly obese patients. If ventilatory rescue is inadequate, oxygen desaturation will persist in the latter groups, despite full reversal of neuromuscular blockade. Depending on body habitus, the duration of intolerable ventilatory depression after sugammadex reversal may be as long as 15 minutes in 5% of individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical management of CICV should focus primarily on restoration of airway patency, oxygenation, and ventilation consistent with the American Society of Anesthesiologist's practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway. Pharmacologic intervention cannot be relied upon to rescue patients in a CICV crisis.

A discrete event simulation model of clinical and operating room efficiency outcomes of sugammadex versus neostigmine for neuromuscular block reversal in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this analysis is to explore potential impact on operating room (OR) efficiency and incidence of residual neuromuscular blockade (RNMB) with use of sugammadex (Bridion™, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ USA) versus neostigmine for neuromuscular block reversal in Canada. METHODS: A discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed to compare ORs using either neostigmine or sugammadex for NMB reversal over one month. Selected inputs included OR procedure and turnover times, hospital policies for paid staff overtime and procedural cancellations due to OR time over-run, and reductions in RNMB and associated complications with sugammadex use. Trials show sugammadex's impact on OR time and RNMB varies by whether full neuromuscular recovery (train-of-four ratio ≥0.9) is verified prior to extubation in the OR. Scenarios were therefore evaluated reflecting varied assumptions for neuromuscular reversal practices. RESULTS: With use of moderate neuromuscular block, when full neuromuscular recovery is verified prior to extubation (93 procedures performed with sugammadex, 91 with neostigmine), use of sugammadex versus neostigmine avoided 2.4 procedural cancellations due to OR time over-run and 33.5 h of paid staff overtime, while saving an average of 62 min per OR day. No difference was observed between comparators for these endpoints in the scenario when full neuromuscular recovery was not verified prior to extubation, however, per procedure risk of RNMB at extubation was reduced from 60% to 4% (reflecting 51 cases prevented), with associated reductions in risks of hypoxemia (12 cases avoided) and upper airway obstruction (23 cases avoided). Sugammadex impact in reversing deep neuromuscular block was evaluated in an exploratory analysis. When it was hypothetically assumed that 30 min of OR time were saved per procedure, the number of paid hours of staff over-time dropped from 84.1 to 32.0, with a 93% reduction in the per patient risk of residual blockade. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice within Canada, for the majority of patients currently managed with moderate neuromuscular block, the principal impact of substituting sugammadex for neostigmine is likely to be a reduction in the risk of residual blockade and associated complications. For patients maintained at a deep level of block to the end of the procedure, sugammadex is likely to both enhance OR efficiency and reduce residual block complications.

Sugammadex facilitates early recovery after surgery even in the absence of neuromuscular monitoring in patients undergoing laryngeal microsurgery: a single-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, routine clinical anaesthesia does not always involve neuromuscular monitoring. In these clinical settings, the efficacy and safety of sugammadex use has not yet been confirmed. We investigated the efficacy and safety of sugammadex in the absence of neuromuscular monitoring. METHODS: One hundred and forty patients who underwent laryngeal microsurgery with the use of rocuronium as a neuromuscular blocking agent, without the use of a neuromuscular monitoring device, were retrospectively investigated. The patients were randomly chosen among all the patients who met the inclusion criteria at a tertiary university hospital between July 2013 and February 2015 and were allocated to group S (sugammadex group) or group P (pyridostigmine group) according to the neuromuscular reversal agent administered. Five patients were excluded from analysis and 135 patients completed the study. Primary outcome was extubation time. Secondary outcomes were anaesthesia time, the correlation between anaesthesia time and extubation time, the total amount of rocuronium, and postoperative adverse events in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU). RESULTS: Extubation time was significantly shorter in group S (6.3 ± 3.9 min) than in group P (9.0 ± 5.4 min). Anaesthesia time was also significantly shorter in group S (30.7 ± 10.3 min) than in group P (35.8 ± 12.6 min). In the patients with an anaesthesia time of 30 min or less, there was a positive correlation between anaesthesia time and extubation time in group P (r = 0.453), but there was no significant relationship in group S. The total amount of rocuronium used was higher in group S (0.62 ± 0.11 mg kg(-1)) than in group P (0.38 ± 0.14 mg kg(-1)). Postoperative adverse events in the PACU were comparable between the groups, except for tachycardia events: the incidence of tachycardia was significantly lower in group S (8.0 %) than in group P (17.3 %). CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex could shorten anaesthesia and extubation times as well as recovery time in the PACU and reduce postoperative hemodynamic complications in a clinical setting in the absence of neuromuscular monitoring. This may enhance the patients' recovery in the operating room and PACU while improving the postoperative condition of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in the UMIN clinical trials registry ( www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index/htm ; unique trial number: UMIN000016602; registration number: R000019266 ; principal investigator's name: Byung Gun Lim; date of registration: February 22, 2015).

Dexamethasone does not diminish sugammadex reversal of neuromuscular block - clinical study in surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex reverses neuromuscular block (NMB) through binding aminosteroid neuromuscular blocking agents. Although sugammadex appears to be highly selective, it can interact with other drugs, like corticosteroids. A prospective single-blinded randomized clinical trial was designed to explore the significance of interactions between dexamethasone and sugammadex. METHODS: Sixty-five patients who were anesthetized for elective abdominal or urological surgery were included. NMB was assessed using train-of-four stimulation (TOF), with rocuronium used to maintain the desired NMB depth. NMB reversal at the end of anaesthesia was achieved using sugammadex. According to their received antiemetics, the patients were randomized to either the granisetron or dexamethasone group. Blood samples were taken before and after NMB reversal, for plasma dexamethasone and rocuronium determination. Primary endpoint was time from sugammadex administration to NMB reversal. Secondary endpoints included the ratios of the dexamethasone and rocuronium concentrations after NMB reversal versus before sugammadex administration. RESULTS: There were no differences for time to NMB reversal between the control (mean 121 ± 61 s) and the dexamethasone group (mean 125 ± 57 s; P = 0.760). Time to NMB reversal to a TOF ratio ≥0.9 was significantly longer in patients with lower TOF prior to sugammadex administration (Beta = -0.268; P = 0.038). The ratio between the rocuronium concentrations after NMB reversal versus before sugammadex administration was significantly affected by sugammadex dose (Beta = -0.375; P = 0.004), as was rocuronium dose per hour of operation (Beta = -0.366; p = 0.007), while it was not affected by NMB depth before administration of sugammadex (Beta = -0.089; p = 0.483) and dexamethasone (Beta = -0.186; p = 0.131). There was significant drop in plasma dexamethasone after sugammadex administration and NMB reversal (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of dexamethasone to anesthetized patients did not delay NMB reversal by sugammadex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered with The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) on February 28th 2012 (enrollment of the first patient on February 2nd 2012) and was given a trial ID number ACTRN12612000245897 and universal trial number U1111-1128-5104.