Postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade after reversal based on a qualitative peripheral nerve stimulator response: A randomised controlled trial

Is quantitative neuromuscular monitoring mandatory after administration of the recommended dose of sugammadex? A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Some anaesthetists wonder whether confirming a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) ≥0.9 is necessary when using sugammadex to antagonise neuromuscular blockade (NMB). In this study, we aimed to determine whether using sugammadex at the recommended dose under neuromuscular monitoring (NMM) would ensure complete recovery, even without further NMM.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 51 patients who underwent robot-assisted surgery under general anaesthesia between March and May 2023. At the end of surgery, sugammadex was administered (2 mg/kg for a train-of-four (TOF) count ≥1 and 4 mg/kg for a TOF count = 0 and a post-tetanic count ≥1). NMM was discontinued, and subsequent recovery was completed at the discretion of the attending anaesthetist. TOFR was measured twice immediately upon admission to the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU). The primary outcome was the incidence of a non-normalised TOFR (nTOFR) <0.9 upon arrival in PACU. The secondary outcomes were the incidences of a nTOFR <0.7 or 1.0, symptoms/signs of residual NMB (diplopia, dyspnoea, and desaturation) and recovery profiles in PACU.

RESULTS

The incidence of a nTOFR <0.9 upon arrival in PACU was 5.9% (3/51 patients). No patient had a nTOFR <0.7, and 47.1% (24 patients) had a nTOFR <1.0, but no patients showed clinical symptoms/signs of residual NMB.

CONCLUSIONS

When the recommended dose of sugammadex was administered under qualitative NMM, residual NMB at the time of PACU arrival occurred frequently, indicating that quantitative NMM is necessary to ensure adequate recovery.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials, NCT05760560.

Perioperative efficiency of sugammadex following minimally invasive gastric sleeve surgery: A superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Studies have proposed that the routine use of sugammadex could provide perioperative time savings and a reduction in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of sugammadex on perioperative times and on the incidences of adverse events when compared with the active control, neostigmine, for minimally invasive gastric sleeve surgery.

METHODS

Following institutional review board approval, patient characteristics, type of primary neuromuscular blocking reversal agents, operating room discharge times, post-anaesthesia care unit recovery times, and incidences of and treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting and orotracheal reintubation were the measures of interest. Superiority testing determined the between-group means differences of the reversal agents on the two perioperative time periods of interest.

RESULTS

Superiority testing demonstrated no improvement of the two perioperative times with sugammadex. There was no clinical difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting or in the number of antiemetic doses received in the post-anaesthesia care unit between the two groups. Finally, the two orotracheal reintubations in the post-anaesthesia care unit were in the sugammadex administered group.

CONCLUSION

These results with sugammadex provide no perioperative time savings or reduce the incidence and treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting in the post-anaesthesia care unit when compared with neostigmine.

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.

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.

Postoperative pulmonary complications after sugammadex reversal of neuromuscular blockade: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Sugammadex has been reported to lower the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade. Despite the advantages, until recently the effects of sugammadex on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) were controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether reversal with sugammadex was associated with a lower risk of PPCs compared with neostigmine.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing PPCs in patients receiving sugammadex or neostigmine as reversal agent at the end of surgery were included. The primary outcomes focused on PPCs including desaturation, pneumonia, atelectasis, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and reintubation. Trial sequential analysis was performed on the primary outcomes to confirm whether firm evidence was reached.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of included studies showed that the rate of desaturation (43.2% vs 45.0%, RR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.05; p = 0.11) were comparable between the two groups. When looking at other primary outcomes, significantly lower risk of pneumonia (1.37% vs 2.45%, RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; p = 0.002), atelectasis (24.6% vs 30.4%, RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.98; p = 0.04), NIV (1.37% vs 2.33%, RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98; p = 0.04) and reintubation (0.99% vs 1.65%, RR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91; p = 0.01) in the sugammadex group were detected compared with the neostigmine group.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that sugammadex is more effective at reducing the incidence of PPCs including pneumonia, atelectasis, NIV and reintubation compared with neostigmine. Further evidence, preferably from RCTs, is required to confirm these findings.

Peri-operative management of neuromuscular blockade: A guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care

Recent data indicated a high incidence of inappropriate management of neuromuscular block, with a high rate of residual paralysis and relaxant-associated postoperative complications. These data are alarming in that the available neuromuscular monitoring, as well as myorelaxants and their antagonists basically allow well tolerated management of neuromuscular blockade. In this first European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) guideline on peri-operative management of neuromuscular block, we aim to present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians provide best medical care and ensure patient safety. We identified three main clinical questions: Are myorelaxants necessary to facilitate tracheal intubation in adults? Does the intensity of neuromuscular blockade influence a patient's outcome in abdominal surgery? What are the strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of residual paralysis? On the basis of this, PICO (patient, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. A stepwise approach was used to reduce the number of trials of the initial research ( n  = 24 000) to the finally relevant clinical studies ( n  = 88). GRADE methodology (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used for formulating the recommendations based on the findings of the included studies in conjunction with their methodological quality. A two-step Delphi process was used to determine the agreement of the panel members with the recommendations: R1 We recommend using a muscle relaxant to facilitate tracheal intubation (1A). R2 We recommend the use of muscle relaxants to reduce pharyngeal and/or laryngeal injury following endotracheal intubation (1C). R3 We recommend the use of a fast-acting muscle relaxant for rapid sequence induction intubation (RSII) such as succinylcholine 1 mg kg -1 or rocuronium 0.9 to 1.2 mg kg -1 (1B). R4 We recommend deepening neuromuscular blockade if surgical conditions need to be improved (1B). R5 There is insufficient evidence to recommend deep neuromuscular blockade in general to reduce postoperative pain or decrease the incidence of peri-operative complications. (2C). R6 We recommend the use of ulnar nerve stimulation and quantitative neuromuscular monitoring at the adductor pollicis muscle to exclude residual paralysis (1B). R7 We recommend using sugammadex to antagonise deep, moderate and shallow neuromuscular blockade induced by aminosteroidal agents (rocuronium, vecuronium) (1A). R8 We recommend advanced spontaneous recovery (i.e. TOF ratio >0.2) before starting neostigmine-based reversal and to continue quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular blockade until a TOF ratio of more than 0.9 has been attained. (1C).

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.

Sugammadex, the Guardian of Deep Muscle Relaxation During Conventional and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: A Narrative Review

High intra-abdominal pressure induced by artificial pneumoperitoneum can obviously impair respiratory and circulatory functions and has a negative effect on the prognosis of patients undergoing conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. The application of deep neuromuscular blockade during the operation is reported to lower the intra-abdominal pressure and improve patients’ outcome. However, concern lies in the risks of postoperative residual muscular paralysis with the use of deep neuromuscular blockade. Sugammadex, a specific antagonist for aminosteroids muscle relaxants, can effectively and rapidly reverse rocuronium and vecuronium induced neuromuscular blockade of different depths. Thus, sugammadex allows the ability to safeguard the application of deep neuromuscular blockade in laparoscopic operations and helps to alleviate the adverse complications associated with pneumoperitoneum. Here, we review the application of deep neuromuscular blockade in different laparoscopic surgeries and discuss the benefits and possible risks of sugammadex administration in the reversal of deep neuromuscular blockade in these operations.

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.

Quality of Recovery after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Following Neuromuscular Blockade Reversal with Neostigmine or Sugammadex: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

The risk of neuromuscular blockade is certainly minimized by sugammadex in combination with monitoring. However, the effect of sugammadex-aided recovery on patients’ satisfaction is unclear. This study compared the Quality of Recovery (QoR)-15 score, which is a patient-reported outcome, in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to the neostigmine or sugammadex groups. At the end of surgery, neostigmine or sugammadex was administered, and tracheal extubation was performed after confirmation of a train of four ratio ≥ 0.9. The QoR-15 questionnaire was administered at 1 day before surgery and on post-operative days (POD) 1 and 2. The primary outcome was the QoR-15 score on POD 1. The secondary outcomes were the QoR-15 score on POD 2, modified Aldrete score, length of post-anesthetic care unit stay, post-operative pain, administration of anti-emetics, urinary retention, and length of hospital stay. No significant differences were found in QoR-15 scores on POD 1 (94.4 vs. 95.5, p = 0.87) or 2 (116.3 vs. 122, p = 0.33). Secondary outcomes were also comparable, with the exception of urinary retention (15.8% neostigmine vs. 2.6% sugammadex, p = 0.04). This study demonstrated that the quality of recovery was comparable between the neostigmine and sugammadex groups when reversal and tracheal extubation were performed in accordance with the current guidelines.