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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Post-operative urinary retention is impacted by neuromuscular block reversal agent choice: A retrospective cohort study in US hospital setting.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Perioperative neuromuscular blocking agents are pharmacologically reversed to minimize complications associated with residual neuromuscular block. Neuromuscular block reversal with anticholinesterases (e.g., neostigmine) require coadministration of an anticholinergic agent (e.g., glycopyrrolate) to mitigate muscarinic activity; however, sugammadex, devoid of cholinergic activity, does not require anticholinergic coadministration. Single-institution studies have found decreased incidence of post-operative urinary retention associated with sugammadex reversal. This study used a multicenter database to better understand the association between neuromuscular block reversal technique and post-operative urinary retention. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study utilizing large healthcare database. SETTING: Non-profit, non-governmental and community and teaching hospitals and health systems from rural and urban areas. PATIENTS: 61,898 matched adult inpatients and 95,500 matched adult outpatients. INTERVENTIONS: Neuromuscular block reversal with sugammadex or neostigmine plus glycopyrrolate. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence of post-operative urinary retention by neuromuscular block reversal agent and the independent association of neuromuscular block reversal technique and risk of post-operative urinary retention. MAIN RESULTS: The incidence of post-operative urinary retention was 2-fold greater among neostigmine with glycopyrrolate compared to sugammadex patients (5.0% vs 2.4% inpatients; 0.9% vs 0.4% outpatients; both p < 0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression identified reversal with neostigmine to be independently associated with greater risk of post-operative urinary retention (inpatients: odds ratio, 2.20; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 2.41; p < 0.001; outpatients: odds ratio, 2.57; 95% confidence interval, 2.13 to 3.10; p < 0.001). Post-operative urinary retention-related visits within 2 days following discharge were five-fold higher among those reversed with neostigmine than sugammadex among inpatients (0.05% vs. 0.01%, respectively; p = 0.018) and outpatients (0.5% vs. 0.1%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Though this study suggests that neuromuscular block reversal with neostigmine can increase post-operative urinary retention risk, additional studies are needed to fully understand the association.

Analysis of the factors contributing to residual weakness after sugammadex administration in pediatric patients under 2 years of age.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex reverses the neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium and vecuronium and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients aged over 2 years. There is, however, a paucity of data regarding its dosing profile in infants and children younger than 2 years. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the risk of recurarization, or re-paralysis, in children under 2 years of age to increase awareness on the importance of appropriate neuromuscular blocked monitoring and reversal. METHODS: All patients aged ≤24 months who underwent an operative procedure at a tertiary medical center between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021, and received both rocuronium for neuromuscular blockade and sugammadex for neuromuscular blockade reversal, were identified in the electronic medical record. Patients were excluded from analysis if they (1) received vecuronium, cisatracurium, atracurium, or succinylcholine for neuromuscular blockade, (2) received neostigmine for reversal, or (3) underwent more than one operation within 24 h. We performed a survival analysis of sugammadex redose using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: We reviewed 2923 records. Sugammadex was redosed in 123 (4.2%) cases. The median [IQR] time to redose was 7 [4-17] min, and the median [IQR] amount of redose administered was 2.74 [1.96-3.99] mg/kg. Increasing patient age (p < .01) and weight (p < .01) were associated with reduced hazard rate of sugammadex redose. For a patient of median weight, increasing age from 3 to 13 months was associated with a 53% risk reduction (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24-0.91). For a patient of median age, increasing weight from 4.7 to 9.2 kg was associated with 41% risk reduction (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.32-1.07). We failed to detect any other associations. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center, retrospective cohort study of pediatric surgery patients, there was an association between the hazard of sugammadex redose with both increased age and weight.

Reversal of rocuronium induced neuromuscular block with sugammadex in patients under 2 years of age. A series of 280 cases.

AIM: Neuromuscular muscle relaxants are still indispensable for surgical procedures requiring general anesthesia, and the use of these agents may result in postoperative residual curarization. Sugammadex may offer a distinct advantage to pediatric patients where residual neuromuscular blockade may be poorly tolerated. Sugammadex is approved for use in adults and children over two years. This is the main reason why large-scale studies could not be conducted in the group of patients younger than two years old. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sugammadex for reversing deep rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade in children under two years of age. METHODS: Pediatric patients younger than two years of age who underwent neurosurgery under sevoflurane anesthesia were included in the study. Neuromuscular block was achieved by the administration of rocuronium. It was antagonized by the administration of 5 mg/kg sugammadex and evaluated using train-of-four (TOF). Primary outcome measure was the time from sugammadex administration to return of the TOF ratio to 0,9. Postoperative adverse events were also recorded. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty patients (10 day-24 months of age; 3-18 kg) were included in this study. Reversal of deep rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block with sugammadex was rapid in all patients. No residual curarization or recurarization was observed. No adverse events or hypersensitivity reactions were observed after administration of sugammadex. CONCLUSION: Reversal of rocuronium-induced deep neuromuscular block in infants was rapid and safe. Sugammadex provided safe extubation in patients younger than two years of age who had undergone neurosurgery. Research Fund. KEY WORDS: Neuromuscular blockade, Neuromuscular monitoring, Pediatrics, Sugammadex.

Effects of magnesium sulphate on neostigmine-induced recovery from moderate neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium: a randomized controlled trial.

Magnesium enhances the effects of neuromuscular blocking agents. However, there is a paucity of evidence demonstrating possible effects of magnesium on neostigmine-induced recovery from neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium. This study compared the profiles of recovery from neuromuscular blockade between groups treated with magnesium (Group M) and placebo controls (Group C). Sixty-four patients were randomly allocated to Group M or Group C. Patients in Group M received a loading dose of 50 mg/kg magnesium and continuous infusion of 15 mg/kg/hr. Patients in Group C received a comparable amount of saline. Rocuronium at 0.6 mg/kg was used for tracheal intubation and 0.1 mg/kg of rocuronium was additionally administered to maintain train-of-four (TOF) status of 2-3 during surgery. At the end of surgery, neostigmine (50 µg/kg) plus glycopyrrolate (10 µg/kg) were administered, and the recovery time for TOF ratios of 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 was measured. The primary outcome was the time from neostigmine administration to recovery with a TOF ratio of 0.9. In addition, rocuronium onset time (time from administration of rocuronium to 95% suppression of the first TOF twitch response), additional requirements for rocuronium and spontaneous recovery period (the time from administration of rocuronium to reappearance of the first TOF twitch response) were also measured. Neostigmine-induced recovery time was comparable between Group M and Group C (10.6 ± 4.3 vs. 9.1 ± 5.0 min, respectively, p = 0.22). The rocuronium onset time was shorter in Group M, and the spontaneous recovery period was longer in Group M. The amount of additional rocuronium administered was 27% lower in Group M, but this difference was not significant. Magnesium was not shown to prolong neostigmine-induced recovery time from neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium, however, it enhanced the clinical effects of rocuronium.

Suspected Accidental Infiltration of Rocuronium During General Anesthesia Induction: A Case Report.

There are few reports on rocuronium infiltration under general anesthesia. We report a case of suspected accidental rocuronium infiltration during anesthesia induction. A 25-year-old woman with autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, and epilepsy was scheduled for the extraction of 4 impacted third molars under general anesthesia. After induction with sevoflurane, an intravenous (IV) line was established in the left cephalic vein. Rocuronium was administered; however, subcutaneous swelling at the IV site was observed immediately. Spontaneous ventilations were maintained until additional rocuronium was administered via a new IV line. After heat pack application, the swelling disappeared 60 minutes after infiltration, and no tissue damage was observed. A strategy was developed to continue neuromuscular monitoring until recovery occurred. Acceleromyography was used, and the train-of-4 ratios at 99, 130, and 140 minutes after infiltration were 0.79, 0.91, and 1.0, respectively. Sugammadex was administered to prevent neuromuscular blockade recurrence. The patient was extubated once adequate return of muscle function and consciousness were observed. No neuromuscular block prolongation or recurrence were observed postoperatively. When rocuronium infiltration is suspected, it is important to eliminate swelling at the infiltration site and determine a management strategy based on neuromuscular monitoring.

Effect of neuromuscular blockade reversal on post-operative urinary retention following inguinal herniorrhaphy.

PURPOSE: This study aims to define the risk of post-operative urinary retention (POUR) following inguinal hernia repair in those that received sugammadex compared to anticholinesterase. METHODS: Adults undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy from January 2019 to July 2022 with at least 30-day follow-up receiving rocuronium or edrophonium and reversed with an anticholinesterase or sugammadex were included. 1-to-2 propensity score matched models were fitted to evaluate the treatment of effect of sugammadex vs. anticholinesterase on POUR, adjusting for patient comorbidities, ASA class, wound class, operative laterality, urgency of case, and open versus minimally invasive repair. RESULTS: 3345 patients were included in this study with 1101 (32.9%) receiving sugammadex for neuromuscular blockade reversal. The 30-day rate of POUR was 2.8%; 1.4% in the sugammadex and 4.4% in the anticholinesterase group. After propensity score matching, patients receiving sugammadex had significantly lower risk of POUR compared to anticholinesterase overall (OR 0.340, p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.198-0.585), in open (OR 0.296, p = 0.013, 95% CI 0.113-0.775) and minimally invasive cases (OR 0.36, p = 0.002, 95% CI 0.188-0.693), unilateral (OR 0.371, p = 0.001, 95% CI 0.203-0.681) and bilateral repairs (OR 0.25, p = 0.025, 95% CI 0.074-0.838), elective (OR 0.329, p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.185-0.584) and clean cases (OR 0.312, p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.176-0.553). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of 30-day new onset POUR was 2.8%. Sugammadex was associated with significantly lower risk of POUR after inguinal herniorrhaphy compared to anticholinesterase overall and when stratifying by operative modality, laterality, and wound class.

Recurarization with magnesium sulfate administered after two minutes sugammadex reversal: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The current study tested the hypothesis that magnesium sulfate after reversal with sugammadex causes recurarization. DESIGN: A single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. SETTING: Terciary care hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. PATIENTS: Included 60 patients undergoing for elective otolaryngological surgery. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received total intravenous anesthesia and a single dose of rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg). In 30 patients, the neuromuscular blockade was reversed with sugammadex (4 mg/kg) at the reappearance of one or two posttetanic counts (deep-blockade series). In 30 other patients, sugammadex (2 mg/kg) was administered at the reappearance of the second twitch of the train-of-four (moderate-blockade series). After the normalized train-of-four ratio recovered to ≥0.9, the patients in each series were randomized to receive intravenous magnesium sulfate (60 mg/kg) or placebo for 10 min. Neuromuscular function was measured by acceleromyography. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the number of patients who exhibited recurarization (normalized train-of-four ratio < 0.9). The secondary outcome was rescue with an additional dose of sugammadex after 60 min. MAIN RESULTS: In the deep-blockade series, a normalized train-of-four ratio < 0.9 occurred in 9/14 (64%) patients receiving magnesium sulfate and 1/14 (7%) receiving placebo, RR 9.0 (95% CI: 62-1.30), and (p = 0.002), with four rescues with sugammadex. In the moderate-blockade series, neuromuscular blockade recurred in 11/15 (73%) patients receiving magnesium sulfate and in 0/14 (0%) receiving placebo (p < 0.001), with two rescues. The absolute differences in recurarization were 57% and 73% in the deep-blockade and moderate-blockade, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose magnesium sulfate led to a normalized train-of-four ratio < 0.9, 2 min after recovery from rocuronium-induced deep and moderate neuromuscular blockade using sugammadex. Additional sugammadex reversed prolonged recurarization.

Enteral feeding tolerance during pharmacologic neuromuscular blockade.

A common misperception is that critically ill patients who receive paralytic therapy will not tolerate enteral nutrition. As a result, some clinicians empirically withhold enteral feedings for critically ill patients who receive neuromuscular blocker pharmacotherapy (NMB). The intent of this review is to examine the evidence regarding enteral feeding tolerance for critically ill patients given NMB. Studies evaluating enteral feeding during paralytic therapy are provided and critiqued. Evidence examining enteral feeding tolerance during NMB is limited. Enteral feeding intolerance is more likely attributable to the underlying illnesses and concurrent opioid analgesia, sedation, and vasopressor therapies. Most critically ill patients can be successfully fed during NMB. Prokinetic pharmacotherapy may be warranted in some patients.

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.

Clarifying the grey space of sugammadex induced bradycardia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review describes recent prospective and retrospective work exploring the incidence and clinical consequence of sugammadex-induced bradycardia and an update of recent evidence and adverse event reports to the United States Food and Drug Administration regarding the incidence of sugammadex induced bradycardia. RECENT FINDINGS: This work suggests that the incidence of sugammadex-induced bradycardia can range from 1 to 7% depending on the definition to reverse moderate to deep neuromuscular blockade. For most instances, the bradycardia is inconsequential. For those instances that have hemodynamic instability, the adverse physiology is easily treated with appropriate vasoactive agents. One study demonstrated that the incidence of bradycardia from sugammadex is less than with neostigmine. There are several case reports that describe marked bradycardia with cardiac arrest from reversal with sugammadex. The incidence of this type of reaction to sugammadex appears to be very rare. Data from the United States Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System public dashboard corroborates this presence of this rare finding. SUMMARY: Sugammadex-induced bradycardia is common and, in most instances, of minimal clinical consequence. Nevertheless, anesthesia providers should maintain proper monitoring and vigilance to treat hemodynamical instability with each administration of sugammadex.

Sugammadex Reduced the Incidence of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Susceptible Patients Identified by ARISCAT Risk Index: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of sugammadex on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in susceptible patients, compared with neostigmine, remains indeterminate. The Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia (ARISCAT) Group Investigators proposed a risk index for the early identification of susceptible patients, with excellent externally validated discrimination ability. Meta-analytical techniques were applied to evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex on PPCs in patients with ARISCAT-defined risk factors. METHODS: The study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42021261156. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane library, GreyNet, and OpenGrey for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) without restricting the language or year of publication. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs consisting of 1182 patients susceptible to PPCs were included. A robust reduction was observed on the incidence of PPCs in susceptible patients who received sugammadex [RR 0.66; 95% CI (0.54, 0.80), p < 0.01], with a low level of between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 45.98%; H2 = 1.85). Similar protective effects were also proved in avoiding residual neuromuscular block (NMB) [RR 0.25; 95% CI (0.11, 0.56); p < 0.01], atelectasis [RR 0.74; 95% CI (0.59, 0.95); p = 0.02], pneumonia [RR 0.49; 95% CI (0.28, 0.88); p = 0.02], and respiratory failure [RR 0.61; 95% CI (0.39, 0.96); p = 0.03]. No difference was observed regarding adverse events [RR 0.85; 95% CI (0.72, 1.01); p = 0.06]. CONCLUSION: Low to moderate quality of evidence demonstrated the edge of sugammadex over neostigmine for NMB reversal in reducing the likelihood of PPCs and residual NMB in patients with ARISCAT-defined risk factors. Clinicians may reassess the type of reversal agent when treating patients susceptible to PPCs.