Comparison of sugammadex and neostigmine–atropine on intraocular pressure and postoperative effects

Effect of sugammadex on postoperative complications in patients with severe burn who underwent surgery: a retrospective study

This retrospective study investigated the association of sugammadex with postoperative pulmonary complication risk between 2013 and 2021 in patients with severe burn of five hospitals. Postoperative pulmonary complications included atelectasis, pulmonary edema, pulmonary effusion, pneumothorax, pneumonia, pulmonary thromboembolism, respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress. To identify whether sugammadex reduced the risk of postoperative pulmonary complication in patients with severe burn who underwent surgery, Kaplan-Meier curve were used to check the difference of incidence according to surgical cases and time-varying Cox hazard regression were used to calculate the hazard ratio. The study included 1213 patients with severe burn who underwent 2259 surgeries. Postoperative pulmonary complications were occurred in 313 (25.8%) patients. Among 2259 surgeries, sugammadex was used in 649 (28.7%) surgeries. Cumulative postoperative pulmonary complication were 268 (16.6%) cases in surgeries without sugammadex, and 45 (6.9%) cases in surgeries with sugammadex, respectively (P < 0.005). The postoperative pulmonary complications risk was reduced significantly in patients who use sugammadex than those who did not use sugammadex. (Adjusted hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.89; P = 0.011). In conclusion, sugammadex reduced risk of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with nonuse of sugammadex in patients with severe burn who underwent surgery.

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.

The effects of sugammadex vs. neostigmine on postoperative respiratory complications and advanced healthcare utilisation: a multicentre retrospective cohort study

Reversing neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex can eliminate residual paralysis, which has been associated with postoperative respiratory complications. There are equivocal data on whether sugammadex reduces these when compared with neostigmine. We investigated the association of the choice of reversal drug with postoperative respiratory complications and advanced healthcare utilisation. We included adult patients who underwent surgery and received general anaesthesia with sugammadex or neostigmine reversal at two academic healthcare networks between January 2016 and June 2021. The primary outcome was postoperative respiratory complications, defined as post-extubation oxygen saturation < 90%, respiratory failure requiring non-invasive ventilation, or tracheal re-intubation within 7 days. Our main secondary outcome was advanced healthcare utilisation, a composite outcome including: 7-day unplanned intensive care unit admission; 30-day hospital readmission; or non-home discharge. In total, 5746 (6.9%) of 83,250 included patients experienced postoperative respiratory complications. This was not associated with the reversal drug (adjusted OR (95%CI) 1.01 (0.94-1.08); p = 0.76). After excluding patients admitted from skilled nursing facilities, 8372 (10.5%) patients required advanced healthcare utilisation, which was not associated with the choice of reversal (adjusted OR (95%CI) 0.95 (0.89-1.01); p = 0.11). Equivalence testing supported an equivalent effect size of sugammadex and neostigmine on both outcomes, and neostigmine was non-inferior to sugammadex with regard to postoperative respiratory complications or advanced healthcare utilisation. Finally, there was no association between the reversal drug and major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted OR 1.07 (0.94-1.21); p = 0.32). Compared with neostigmine, reversal of neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex was not associated with a reduction in postoperative respiratory complications or post-procedural advanced healthcare utilisation.

2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Monitoring and Antagonism of Neuromuscular Blockade: A Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Neuromuscular Blockade

These practice guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the management of neuromuscular monitoring and antagonism of neuromuscular blocking agents during and after general anesthesia. The guidance focuses primarily on the type and site of monitoring and the process of antagonizing neuromuscular blockade to reduce residual neuromuscular blockade.

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.

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).