Clinical Impact of Sugammadex in the Reversal of Neuromuscular Blockade

Background A neuromuscular blockade (NMB) is used in general anesthesia to facilitate endotracheal intubation and muscle relaxation during procedural and surgical interventions. Rapid and complete reversal of the NMB allows for patient recovery to the preoperative baseline with ventilation and motor function, along with the complete return of gastroesophageal motility, thereby expediting recovery and preventing microaspiration in the postoperative period. Sugammadex is a modified gamma cyclodextrin that complexes with steroidal neuromuscular blocking agents (specifically, rocuronium and vecuronium), leading to a molecular gradient and removal of the agents from the neuromuscular junction. Sugammadex has been shown to have a more rapid reversal of neuromuscular blockade compared to neostigmine. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if perioperative efficiency was increased when sugammadex was used for paralytic reversal compared to the traditional regimen of neostigmine and glycopyrrolate. Methods A retrospective cohort study of patients admitted for surgical intervention in June 2019 was conducted. Two groups were compared: those who received sugammadex for reversal and those who received neostigmine, plus glycopyrrolate. The primary outcome was time to extubation from the administration of the reversal agent. Results Two hundred seventy-one surgical cases were evaluated. Average doses of sugammadex for those with profound neuromuscular blockade as indicated by a train of four (TOF) of 0 - 2 was 2.47 (0.9) mg/kg for sugammadex and 0.042 (0.01) mg/kg for neostigrnine, plus glycopyrrolate. Seventeen patients in the sugammadex group experienced bradycardia after reversal compared to 22 in the neostigrnine, plus glycopyrrolate, group (p = 0.73). Reintubation was required for three patients in the neostigmine, plus glycopyrrolate, group and no patients in the sugammadex group. The mean time to extubation from the procedure end comparing reversal with sugammadex and neostigrnine, plus glycopyrrolate, was 12.5 (7.6) minutes versus 13.7 (8.8) minutes (p = 0.44), respectively. Comparison of reversal with sugammadex versus neostigmine, plus glycopyrrolate, and time spent in the post-anesthesia care unit was 83.6 (48.6) minutes versus 81.7 (46.6) (p = 0.73), respectively. Conclusions In this retrospective cohort study, we observed a deviation in the recommended sugammadex dosage and increased reintubation rates but no difference in time to extubation or Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) length of stay times when patients received sugammadex compared to neostigmine, plus glycopyrrolate, for neuromuscular blockade reversal. Understanding the PACU flow and culture, education of providers about dosages, along with completion of prospective studies, to correlate acceleromyograph values to reversal and postoperative ventilatory and deglutary function can help assess the true clinical value of sugammadex.

Automated summary

The study aimed to evaluate the perioperative efficiency of Sugammadex compared to the traditional regimen. Results showed similar extubation times and reintubation rates between Sugammadex and neostigmine groups, with deviations in dosage observed.