Comparison of the effects of sugammadex and neostigmine on postoperative nausea and vomiting

Optimizing Reversal of Neuromuscular Block in Older Adults: Sugammadex or Neostigmine

Residual neuromuscular paralysis, the presence of clinically significant weakness after administration of pharmacologic neuromuscular blockade reversal, is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications and is more common in older patients. In contemporary anesthesia practice, reversal of neuromuscular blockade is accomplished with neostigmine or sugammadex. Neostigmine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, increases the concentration of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction, providing competitive antagonism of neuromuscular blocking drug and facilitating muscle contraction. Sugammadex, a modified gamma-cyclodextrin, antagonizes neuromuscular blockade by encapsulating rocuronium and vecuronium in a one-to-one ratio for renal clearance, a pharmacokinetic property that led to the recommendation that sugammadex not be administered to those with end-stage renal disease. While data are limited, reports suggest sugammadex is efficacious and well tolerated in individuals with reduced renal function. Sugammadex provides a more rapid and complete reversal of neuromuscular blockade than neostigmine. There is also accumulating evidence that sugammadex may provide a protective effect against the development of postoperative pulmonary complications, nausea, and vomiting, and that it may have beneficial effects on the rate of bowel and bladder recovery after surgery. Accordingly, sugammadex administration is beneficial for most older patients undergoing surgery.

Effects of Sugammadex and Neostigmine on Post-operative Nausea and Vomiting in ENT Surgery

We aim to compare the effects of sugammadex on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with those of neostigmine–atropine mixture. A total of 136 American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) I or II patients, aged 18 to 65 years who underwent ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgery under general anesthesia, were recruited in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study to receive either sugammadex 2 mg/kg or neostigmine 2.5 mg with atropine 1 mg for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. PONV scores and the need for the rescue of anti-emetic were assessed upon arrival in the post-anesthesia recovery unit and at 1-, 6-, 12-, and 24-h post-reversal. The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in patients who received sugammadex (3%) compared to patients who received neostigmine–atropine mixture (20%) at 6 h postoperative (p = 0.013). The incidence of PONV was comparable at other time intervals. None of the sugammadex recipients require rescue antiemetic whereas two patients from the neostigmine–atropine group required rescue antiemetic at 1 and 6 h post-reversal, respectively. The need for the rescue antiemetic was not statistically significant. We concluded that reversal of neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex showed lower incidence of PONV compared to neostigmine–atropine combination in the first 6 h post-reversal.

Influence of sugammadex versus neostigmine for neuromuscular block reversal on the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The influence of sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular block (NMB) on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), compared with neostigmine, remains to be determined. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the incidence of PPCs between patients who received sugammadex versus neostigmine.

METHODS

Relevant studies were obtained by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. A random effects model incorporating the potential heterogeneity was used to pool the results.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs including 1478 adult patients who underwent surgeries with general anesthesia were included, and of these, 753 received sugammadex and 725 received neostigmine for reversal of NMB. The pooled results showed that sugammadex was associated with a lower risk of overall PPCs compared to neostigmine (odds ratio [OR]: 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.89, p = 0.01; I² = 0%). This finding remained consistent after exclusion of two studies with potential overlapping events (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.96, p = 0.03; I²=9%). Stratified analyses according to the categories of PPCs showed that sugammadex was associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative respiratory failure (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.38-0.97, p = 0.04; I² = 0%) but not of postoperative pulmonary infection (OR: 0.79, p = 0.71), atelectasis (OR: 0.78, p = 0.33), or pneumothorax (OR: 0.87, p = 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with neostigmine, the use of sugammadex for reversal of NMB was associated with a lower risk of PPCs, mainly due to a lower incidence of postoperative respiratory failure with the use of sugammadex.

The Impact of Different Antiemetics on the Nausea in Early Postoperative Period After Laparoscopic Holecystectomy

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a patient-important outcome; patients often rate PONV as worse than postoperative pain. This clinical study was aimed to asses the efficiency of standard aniemetics administration separately or in combination in prevention of PONV in patients who underwent to the same surgical procedure - laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Also, this article could provide a novel information about the best choice for prevention and treatment of PONV. This study included 87 patients divided into four groups according to the postoperative phramacological treatment: First group was control group without treatment, Second group was group of patients with ondasetron treatment in postoperative period, Third group was group of patients with ondasetron+dexamethasone treatment, and fourth group was group of patients with dexamethasone treatment in postoperative period for nausea. PONV was distributed in Ondansetron+Dexamethasone group in the lowest percent (4.5%), which means that this conbination of antiemetics was very effective. Than, Dexamethasone group was in relation with low incidence of PONV (14.3%), and after that were Ondansetron and Control groups. Also smokers and males has lower incidence of PONV, especially in combination with Ondansetron+Dexamethasone treatment.

The incidence of PONV is lower in male smokers patients who were underwent to combination of two antiemetics, ondansetron and dexamethasone compared to monotherapy and female non-smokers. Preventive strategies for PONV must include risk stratification followed by prophylactic approach and also testing the newer antiemetics. Because of the high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting as a patient-important outcome, the preventive strategies should be considered as serious condition which requires multimodal approach.

Comparison of the Effects of Sugammadex, Neostigmine, and Pyridostigmine on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Propensity Matched Study of Five Hospitals

Thus far, few studies have compared the effects of sugammadex and cholinesterase inhibitors on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and the results have been controversial. Here, we compared the effects of sugammadex, neostigmine, and pyridostigmine on PONV by means of a five hospital analysis with propensity score matching. We analyzed adults aged ≥ 18 years who underwent general anesthesia between January 2014 and December 2019. Following propensity score matching, 7793 patients were included in each of the neostigmine and sugammadex matched patient groups (absolute standardized difference (ASD), 0.01–0.07), and 10,197 patients were included in each of the pyridostigmine and sugammadex matched patient groups (ASD, 0.01–0.02), while 19,377 patients were included in each of the pyridostigmine and neostigmine matched patient groups. (ASD, 0.01–0.19). The odds of PONV were low in the sugammadex group (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–0.72; p < 0.0001) and pyridostigmine group (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.20–0.24; p < 0.0001) compared to the neostigmine group, while there was no difference between sugammadex and pyridostigmine (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.86–1.04; p = 0.281). Therefore, sugammadex and pyridostigmine may lower the incidence of PONV compared to neostigmine in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient’s risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.

Recovery from Anesthesia after Robotic-Assisted Radical Cystectomy: Two Different Reversals of Neuromuscular Blockade

During robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC), specific surgical conditions (a steep Trendelenburg position, prolonged pneumoperitoneum, effective myoresolution until the final stages of surgery) can seriously impair the outcomes. The aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and ileus and the quality of cognitive function at the awakening in two groups of patients undergoing different reversals. In this randomized trial, patients that were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA) ≤III candidates for RARC for bladder cancer were randomized into two groups: In the sugammadex (S) group, patients received 2 mg/kg of sugammadex as reversal of neuromuscolar blockade; in the neostigmine (N) group, antagonization was obtained with neostigmine 0.04 mg/kg + atropine 0.02 mg/kg. PONV was evaluated at 30 min, 6 and 24 h after anesthesia. Postoperative cognitive functions and time to resumption of intestinal transit were also investigated. A total of 109 patients were analyzed (54 in the S group and 55 in the N group). The incidence of early PONV was lower in the S group but not statistically significant (S group 25.9% vs. N group 29%; p = 0.711). The Mini-Mental State test mean value was higher in the S group vs. the N group (1 h after surgery: 29.3 (29; 30) vs. 27.6 (27; 30), p = 0.007; 4 h after surgery: 29.5 (30; 30) vs. 28.4 (28; 30), p = 0.05). We did not observe a significant decrease of the PONV after sugammadex administration versus neostigmine use. The Mini-Mental State test mean value was greater in the S group.