[Neuromuscular Blockade in the Critically Ill]. / Muskelrelaxanzien in der Intensivmedizin.

The management of sedation in intensive care medicine has changed substantially in the last few years. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) are only rarely indicated in modern intensive care medicine. In this review, the mechanism of action, potential side effects, and special considerations for the application of NMBA to critically ill patients will be discussed. We further present the rationale for the use of NMBA for the remaining indications, such as endotracheal intubation, selected cases of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, and shivering during temperature control after cardiac arrest. The review will close with a description of potential side effects of NMBA use in the intensive care setting, such as awareness, acquired skeletal muscle weakness as well as corneal injuries, and how monitoring of sedation and peripheral muscle blockade may be handled.

[Update: Neuromuscular Blockade during General Anesthesia]. / Update: Muskelrelaxierung in der Anästhesie.

The correct use of muscle relaxants and neuromuscular monitoring during anesthesia has been subject of controversial discussions for decades. Particularly important in clinical practice are identification and management of residual neuromuscular blockages and avoidance of associated complications. Despite the differences in the molecular mechanisms of action between depolarizing and non-depolarizing muscle relaxants the blockade of the postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptor remains a common ending pathway. Due to its unfavorable side effect profile, succinylcholine should only be used in justified exceptional cases. The use of muscle relaxants generally reduces the complication rate in airway management. However, even the single use of muscle relaxants increases the likelihood of postoperative pulmonary complications. These complications associated with the use of muscle relaxants, such as residual neuromuscular blockade, must be anticipated. The application of guideline-based approaches, including continuous neuromuscular monitoring and the application of muscle relaxant reversal agents, may significantly reduce the rate of adverse events associated with the use of muscle relaxants.

Effects of neuromuscular block reversal with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate versus sugammadex on bowel motility recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of neostigmine/glycopyrrolate (a traditional agent) and sugammadex on bowel motility recovery and the occurrence of digestive system complications after colorectal surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A single tertiary center. PATIENTS: 111 patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized into two groups based on the block reversal agent: 1) a mixture of 50 µg.kg-1 of neostigmine and 10 µg.kg-1 of glycopyrrolate (neostigmine group) and 2) 2 mg.kg-1 of sugammadex (sugammadex group). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the time from the surgery's completion to the first flatus. The time to the first postoperative defecation, incidences of postoperative nausea or vomiting, ileus, and dry mouth, as well as postoperative length of stay, were also assessed. MAIN RESULTS: The time to the first flatus was significantly shorter in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group (59 [42-79] h vs 69 [53-90] h, P = 0.027). The time to the first defecation and the incidences of postoperative nausea or vomiting and ileus did not differ between the groups, nor did the postoperative length of stay. However, the incidence of postoperative dry mouth was significantly lower in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group (7 patients [13%] vs 39 patients [71%], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The time to the first flatus was shorter using 2 mg.kg-1 sugammadex to reverse the neuromuscular block for laparoscopic colorectal surgery compared to reversal with conventional neostigmine/glycopyrrolate.

A pharmacovigilance study of FDA adverse events for sugammadex.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex, a selective steroidal neuromuscular blocking agent reversal agent, is increasingly employed for the rapid restoration of neuromuscular function. This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of sugammadex's safety profile. METHODS: Adverse events (AEs) related to sugammadex reported in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from January 2009 to September 2023 were extracted. Disproportionality analysis with four measures: reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) were employed to detect significant AEs. We also inspected for unexpected AEs absent from the sugammadex FDA approval documentation and categorized AEs based on the latest version (26.1) of 'Important Medical Event Terms List (IME list)' developed by the EudraVigilance Expert Working Group. RESULTS: A total of 1452 reports were linked to sugammadex. At the preferred terms (PTs) levels, 98 sugammadex-related AEs were identified, including "anaphylactic reaction", "bradycardia", "bronchospasm" and "cardiac arrest". Among them, 37 representing unexpected events were absent from official FDA labeling, and 50 AEs were recognized as IME warranting observation. Notably, 19 PTs denoted serious AEs were absent from labeling yet needing IME surveillance, including: "Kounis syndrome", "angioedema", "pulseless electrical activity" and "laryngeal edema". CONCLUSION: The study identified unexpected and potentially life-threatening AEs associated with sugammadex, a valuable agent for rapidly reversing neuromuscular blockade. Clinicians are advised to be mindful of these potential risks, particularly in patients with allergies or existing cardiovascular or respiratory conditions.

Impact of neuromuscular block on myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) incidence in the early postoperative stage of older patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) is a common and serious complication in older patients. This study investigates the impact of neuromuscular block on the MINS incidence and other cardiovascular complications in the early postoperative stage of older patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. METHODS: 70 older patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection were separated into the deep neuromuscular block group and moderate neuromuscular block group for 35 cases in each group (n = 1:1). The deep neuromuscular block group maintained train of four (TOF) = 0, post-tetanic count (PTC) 1-2, and the moderate neuromuscular block group maintained TOF = 1-2 during the operation. Sugammadex sodium was used at 2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg for muscle relaxation antagonism at the end of surgery. The MINS incidence was the primary outcome and compared with Fisher's exact test. About the secondary outcomes, the postoperative pain was analyzed with Man-Whitney U test, the postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and the incidence of cardiovascular complications were analyzed with Chi-square test, intraoperative mean artery pressure (MAP) and cardiac output (CO) ratio to baseline, length of stay and dosage of anesthetics were compared by two independent samples t-test. RESULTS: MINS was not observed in both groups. The highest incidence of postoperative cardiovascular complications was lower limbs deep vein thrombosis (14.3% in deep neuromuscular block group and 8.6% in moderate neuromuscular group). The numeric rating scale (NRS) score in the deep neuromuscular block group was lower than the moderate neuromuscular block group 72 h after surgery (0(1,2) vs 0(1,2), P = 0.018). The operation time in the deep neuromuscular block group was longer (356.7(107.6) vs 294.8 (80.0), min, P = 0.008), the dosage of propofol and remifentanil was less (3.4 (0.7) vs 3.8 (1.0), mg·kg-1·h-1, P = 0.043; 0.2 (0.06) vs 0.3 (0.07), µg·kg-1·min-1, P < 0.001), and the length of hospital stay was shorter than the moderate neuromuscular block group (18.4 (4.9) vs 22.0 (8.3), day, P = 0.028). The differences of other outcomes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining different degrees of the neuromuscular block under TOF guidance did not change the MINS incidence within 7 days after surgery in older patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (10/02/2021, ChiCTR2100043323).

The safety and efficacy of sugammadex for reversing neuromuscular blockade in younger children and infants.

INTRODUCTION: Sugammadex, a novel selective antagonist of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents, has been shown to rapidly and effectively reverse moderate and deep paralysis in adults and pediatric patients over age 2, improving patient recovery and reducing the risk of postoperative complications. AREAS COVERED: Since the use of sugammadex in patients under age 2 is not widely studied, we aim to provide an overview on the drug's application and potential use in infants and neonates. There is a limited but growing body of evidence for the safe, efficacious use of sugammadex in children under age 2. Relevant studies were identified from the most updated data including case reports, clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta analyses. EXPERT OPINION: The results suggest that at a dose of 2 to 4 mg/kg of sugammadex can be safely used to rapidly and effectively reverse neuromuscular blockade in neonates and infants; it is non-inferior based on incidence of adverse events compared to neostigmine. Additionally, sugammadex doses between 8 and 16 mg/kg may be used as a rescue agent for infants during 'can't intubate, can't ventilate' crisis. Overall, sugammadex offers new value in the perioperative care of patients under age 2, with further studies warranted to better understand its application and full effect in the pediatric population.

Postoperative residual curarisation in geriatric patients: a prospective, observational cohort study.

Objective: To evaluate the occurrence and potential risk factors of residual curarisation after surgery and the subsequent acute respiratory events in elderly patients. METHODS: The prospective, cohort study was conducted at Ankara City Hospital from July to December 2021, and comprised data of geriatric patients undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia using moderate-acting nondepolarising muscle relaxants. Postoperative acute respiratory events in the post-anaesthesia care unit were subsequently noted. Data was analysed using SPSS 25. RESULTS: Of the 185 patients aged >65 years evaluated, 174(94%) were included; 88(50.6%) females and 86(49.4%) males. The incidence of residual curarisation was in 6(3.4%) patients. Postoperative residual curarisation was significantly associated with smooth recovery process (p<0.05). The recovery was associated with intraoperative bleeding, total dose of neuromuscular blocker, and the length of time from the last dose of neuromuscular blocker to antagonist administration (p<0.05). Postoperative critical respiratory events were more common in patients with postoperative residual curarisation (p< 0.001). The length of stay in post-anaesthesia care unit was 1.57 times longer in such patients (p=0.001). Conclusion: Postoperative residual curarisation increased length of hospital stay and respiratory complications.

Association between reversal agents (sugammadex vs. neostigmine) for neuromuscular block and postoperative pulmonary complications: A retrospective analysis.

AIMS: Residual neuromuscular blockade has been linked to pulmonary complications in the postoperative period. This study aimed to determine whether sugammadex was associated with a lower risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) compared with neostigmine. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary academic medical center. Patients ≥18 year of age undergoing noncardiac surgical procedures with general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation were enrolled between January 2019 and September 2021. We identified all patients receiving rocuronium and reversal with neostigmine or sugammadex via electronic medical record review. The primary endpoint was a composite of PPCs (including pneumonia, atelectasis, respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, or pneumothorax). The incidence of PPCs was compared using propensity score analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1786 patients were included in this study. Among these patients, 976 (54.6%) received neostigmine, and 810 (45.4%) received sugammadex. In the whole sample, PPCs occurred in 81 (4.54%) subjects (7.04% sugammadex vs. 2.46% neostigmine). Baseline covariates were well balanced between groups after overlap weighting. Patients in the sugammadex group had similar risk (overlap weighting OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.41) compared to neostigmine. The sensitivity analysis showed consistent results. In subgroup analysis, the interaction P-value for the reversal agents stratified by surgery duration was 0.011. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the rate of PPCs when the neuromuscular blockade was reversed with sugammadex compared to neostigmine. Patients undergoing prolonged surgery may benefit from sugammadex, which needs to be further investigated.

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.

Improving Neuromuscular Monitoring Through Education-Based Interventions and Studying Its Association With Adverse Postoperative Outcomes: A Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the association between education-based interventions, the frequency of train-of-four (TOF) monitoring, and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We studied adults undergoing noncardiac surgery from February 1, 2020 through October 31, 2021. Our education-based interventions consisted of 3 phases. An interrupted time-series analysis, adjusting for patient- and procedure-related characteristics and secular trends over time, was used to assess the associations between education-based interventions and the frequency of TOF monitoring, postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), 90-day mortality, and sugammadex dosage. For each outcome and intervention phase, we tested whether the intervention at that phase was associated with an immediate change in the outcome or its trend (weekly rate of change) over time. In a sensitivity analysis, the association between education-based interventions and postoperative outcomes was adjusted for TOF monitoring. RESULTS: Of 19,422 cases, 11,636 (59.9%) had documented TOF monitoring. Monitoring frequency increased from 44.2% in the first week of preintervention stage to 83.4% in the final week of the postintervention phase. During the preintervention phase, the odds of TOF monitoring trended upward by 0.5% per week (odds ratio [OR], 1.005; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002-1.007). Phase 1 saw an immediate 54% increase (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.33-1.79) in the odds, and the trend OR increased by 3% (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05) to 1.035, or 3.5% per week (joint Wald test, P < .001). Phase 2 was associated with a further immediate 29% increase (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.02-1.64) but no significant association with trend (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01) of TOF monitoring (joint test, P = .04). Phase 3 and postintervention phase were not significantly associated with the frequency of TOF monitoring (joint test, P = .16 and P = .61). The study phases were not significantly associated with PPCs or sugammadex administration. The trend OR for 90-day mortality was larger by 24% (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06-1.45; joint test, P = .03) in phase 2 versus phase 1, from a weekly decrease of 8% to a weekly increase of 14%. However, this trend reversed again at the transition from phase 3 to the postintervention phase (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; joint test, P = .05), from a 14% weekly increase to a 6.2% weekly decrease in the odds of 90-day mortality. In sensitivity analyses, adjusting for TOF monitoring, we found similar associations between study initiatives and postoperative outcomes. TOF monitoring was associated with lower odds of PPCs (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.86) and 90-day mortality (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98), but not sugammadex dosing (mean difference, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our education-based interventions were associated with both TOF utilization and 90-day mortality but were not associated with either the odds of PPCs or sugammadex dosing. TOF monitoring was associated with reduced odds of PPCs and 90-day mortality.

Extravascular injection of neuromuscular blocking drugs: A systematic review of current evidence and management.

Extravascular injection of neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBDs) can cause a neuromuscular block because of systemic absorption. Currently, there are no guidelines available on managing extravasation of NMBDs. This article reviews the available literature on extravasation of NMBDs. Medline and Embase databases were searched for studies concerning the paravenous or subcutaneous injection of NMBDs. Nine articles were included consisting of seven case reports, one case series and one clinical trial. Rocuronium was used as primary NMBD in nine cases, vecuronium in two cases and pancuronium in one case. Although there exists significant heterogeneity between the reported information in the included studies, the majority of the case reports describe a slower onset, with a median delay of 20 min and prolonged duration of the neuromuscular block. Nine patients had a residual neuromuscular block at the end of the surgery. Postoperative monitoring in the recovery room was prolonged (median time 4 h). Most studies suggest that the delay in NMBD onset and recovery is caused by the formation of a subcutaneous depot, from which the NMBD is slowly absorbed into the systemic circulation. According to the current literature, extravasation of NMBDs results in an unpredictable neuromuscular block. Strategies to prevent potentially harmful side effects, such as frequent train-of-four (TOF) monitoring, the use of NMBD reversal agents and prolonged length of stay in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU), should be considered. This article suggests a clinical pathway that can be used after extravascular injection of NMBDs.

Efficacy and safety of adamgammadex for reversing rocuronium-induced deep neuromuscular blockade: A multicenter, randomized, phase IIb study.

The rapid reversal of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) is important but remains challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adamgammadex versus sugammadex in reversing deep rocuronium-induced NMB. This multicenter, randomized, phase IIb study included 80 patients aged 18-64 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade 1-2, undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia with rocuronium. Patients were randomized to the adamgammadex 7, 8, and 9 mg/kg group or the sugammadex 4 mg/kg group. The primary efficacy variable was the time to recovery of train-of-four ratio (TOFr) to 0.9. The secondary efficacy variables were the time to recovery of TOFr to 0.7, antagonistic success rate of the recovery of TOFr to 0.9 within 5 min, and incidence rate of recurarization within 30 min after drug administration. The explorative efficacy variable was the time to recovery of the corrected TOFr to 0.9 (actual/baseline TOF ratio). Adamgammadex 7, 8, and 9 mg/kg and sugammadex 4 mg/kg groups did not significantly differ in all efficacy variables. Importantly, adamgammadex 9 mg/kg permitted reversal within a geometric mean of 2.9 min. According to the safety profile, adamgammadex achieved good tolerance and low incidence of drug-related adverse events compared with the 4 mg/kg sugammadex. Adamgammadex 7, 8, and 9 mg/kg facilitated rapid reversal of deep rocuronium-induced NMB and had good tolerance and low incidence of drug-related adverse events. Therefore, adamgammadex is a potential and promising alternative to sugammadex.

Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred option for many procedures. To properly perform laparoscopic surgery, it is essential that sudden movements and abdominal contractions in patients are prevented, as it limits the surgeon's view. There has been a growing interest in the potential beneficial effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in laparoscopic surgery. Deep NMB improves the surgical field by preventing abdominal contractions, and it is thought to decrease postoperative pain. However, it is uncertain if deep NMB improves intraoperative safety and thereby improves clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of deep neuromuscular blockade versus no, shallow, or moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults undergoing laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures comparing deep NMB to moderate, shallow, or no NMB. We excluded trials that did not report any of the primary or secondary outcomes of our review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life, and 3. proportion of participants with serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. proportion of participants with non-serious adverse events, 5. readmissions within three months, 6. short-term pain scores, 7. measurements of postoperative recovery, and 8. operating time. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 randomised clinical trials with 3898 participants. Most trials included participants undergoing intraperitoneal oncological resection surgery. We present the Peto fixed-effect model for most dichotomous outcomes as only sparse events were reported. Comparison 1: deep versus moderate NMB Thirty-eight trials compared deep versus moderate NMB. Deep NMB may have no effect on mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 115.43; 12 trials, 1390 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life up to four days postoperative (mean difference (MD) 4.53 favouring deep NMB on the Quality of Recovery-40 score, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.09; 5 trials, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean difference lower than the mean clinically important difference of 10 points). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB on intraoperatively serious adverse events (deep NMB 38/1150 versus moderate NMB 38/1076; Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52; 21 trials, 2231 participants; very low-certainty evidence), short-term serious adverse events (up to 60 days) (deep NMB 37/912 versus moderate NMB 42/852; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 16 trials, 1764 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and short-term non-serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35; 11 trials, 1232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely does not alter the duration of surgery (MD -0.51 minutes, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.32; 34 trials, 3143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if deep NMB alters the length of hospital stay (MD -0.22 days, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 19 trials, 2084 participants; low-certainty evidence) or pain scores one hour after surgery (MD -0.31 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; 22 trials, 1823 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point) and 24 hours after surgery (MD -0.60 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 16 trials, 1404 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point). Comparison 2: deep versus shallow NMB Three trials compared deep versus shallow NMB. The trials did not report on mortality and health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB compared to shallow NMB on the proportion of serious adverse events (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.57; 2 trials, 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3: deep versus no NMB One trial compared deep versus no NMB. There was no mortality in this trial, and health-related quality of life was not reported. The proportion of serious adverse events was 0/25 in the deep NMB group and 1/25 in the no NMB group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of deep NMB compared to moderate NMB on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life and duration of surgery compared to moderate NMB, and it may have no effect on the length of hospital stay. Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we do not know what the effect is of deep NMB on non-serious adverse events, pain scores, or readmission rates. Randomised clinical trials with adequate reporting of all adverse events would reduce the current uncertainties. Due to the low number of identified trials and the very low certainty of evidence, we do not know what the effect of deep NMB on serious adverse events is compared to shallow NMB and no NMB. We found no trials evaluating mortality and health-related quality of life.

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.