Benefits and risks of sugammadex

Sugammadex Safely Reduces Total Intubation Time in the Intensive Care Unit Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) at a Real-World Community Hospital

Background/Objectives: Early extubation is crucial for enhancing recovery from coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Residual neuromuscular blockade (NMB) effects can hinder early extubation, potentially leading to reintubation, lung infection, and prolonged post-anesthesia stay. Sugammadex, a modified gamma-cyclodextrin, reverses the non-depolarizing NMB effects of the steroidal muscle relaxants rocuronium and vecuronium. The American Society of Anesthesiologists recommends sugammadex administration when patients display a train-of-four (TOF) ratio of less than 0.9. Previous studies show that sugammadex decreases extubation times, reduces postoperative complications, and enhances patient comfort. Methods: This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated the efficacy of sugammadex in achieving extubation within six hours of intensive care unit (ICU) arrival post-CABG, defined as fast-track extubation (FTE). Results: Here, we report that although the total time of intubation in the ICU following CABG did not drop to the six-hour benchmark, it was substantially reduced by the administration of sugammadex in accordance with an FTE protocol. Furthermore, the risks of adverse events (e.g., anaphylaxis, heart failure) and postoperative complications (e.g., acidemia, hypoxemia, tachypnea) were unaltered. Conclusions: The use of sugammadex could, thus, reduce costs associated with prolonged intubation time and related complications without increasing morbidity or mortality.

Postoperative oxygenation assessed by SpO2/FiO2 ratio and respiratory complications after reversal of neuromuscular block with Sugammadex or neostigmine: A retrospective cohort study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Residual neuromuscular block may lead to postoperative muscle weakness, inadequate oxygenation, and other pulmonary complications. Sugammadex may provide more rapid and effective restoration of neuromuscular function than neostigmine. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that noncardiac surgical patients given sugammadex oxygenate better during initial recovery than those given neostigmine. Secondarily, we tested the hypothesis that patients given sugammadex have fewer pulmonary complications during hospitalization.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis.

SETTING

Postoperative recovery area of a tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

Adults who had non-cardiothoracic surgery and were given either neostigmine or sugammadex.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the lowest SpO₂/FiO₂ ratio in the post-anesthesia care unit. The secondary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications.

MAIN RESULTS

Among 71,457 cases, 10,708 (15%) were given sugammadex and 60,749 (85%) received neostigmine. After propensity weighting, the mean minimum SpO₂/FiO₂ ratio was 301 ± 77 (SD) in patients given sugammadex and 303 ± 71 in those given neostigmine, yielding an estimated difference in means of -3.5 (95% confidence interval: -5.3, -1.7; P = 0.0002). 4.4% of patients given sugammadex and 3.6% of patients given neostigmine had postoperative pulmonary complications (P = 0.0005, number-needed-to-be-exposed =136; 95% CI: 83, 330), with the main contributing components being new bronchospasm or exacerbation of obstructive pulmonary disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative minimum SpO₂/FiO₂ ratio during PACU admission was similar after reversal of neuromuscular block by sugammadex and neostigmine. Reversal with sugammadex was associated with more pulmonary complications, but most were minor and of little consequence.

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).

The combination of sugammadex and neostigmine can reduce the dosage of sugammadex during recovery from the moderate neuromuscular blockade

BACKGROUND

Sugammadex is a novel neuromuscular reversal agent, but its associated hypersensitivity reaction and high cost have been obstacles to its widespread use. In the interest of reducing the necessary dosage of sugammadex, the reversal time of the combined use of sugammadex and neostigmine from moderate neuromuscular blockade were investigated.

METHODS

The patients enrolled ranged in age from 18 to 65 years old with American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2. The subjects were randomly assigned into one of the four groups (Group S2, S1, SN, and N; n = 30 per group). The reversal agents of each groups were as follows: S2 - sugammadex 2 mg/kg, S1 - sugammadex 1 mg/kg, SN - sugammadex 1 mg/kg + neostigmine 50 µg/kg + glycopyrrolate 10 µg/kg, N - neostigmine 50 µg/kg + glycopyrrolate 10 µg/kg. The time to recovery of the train-of-four (TOF) ratio was checked in each group.

RESULTS

The time to 90% recovery of TOF ratio was 182.6 ± 88.9, 371.1 ± 210.4, 204.3 ± 103.2, 953.2 ± 379.7 sec in group S2, S1, SN and N, respectively. Group SN showed a significantly shorter recovery time than did group S1 and N (P < 0.001). However, statistically significant differences between the S2 and SN groups were not be observed (P = 0.291). No hypersensitivity reactions occurred in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For the reversal from rocuronium-induced moderate neuromuscular blockade, the combined use of sugammadex and neostigmine may be helpful to decrease the recovery time and can also reduce the required dosage of sugammadex. However, the increased incidence of systemic muscarinic side effects must be considered.