László Asztalos1, Zoltán Szabó-Maák, András Gajdos, Réka Nemes, Adrienn Pongrácz, Szabolcs Lengyel, Béla Fülesdi, Edömér Tassonyi. 1. From the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary (L.A., Z.S.-M., A.G., R.N., A.P., B.F., E.T.); Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, Ohio (B.F.); and Department of Ecology, Danube Research Institute, Centre for Ecological Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Debrecen, Hungary (S.L.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block that spontaneously recovered to a train-of-four count of four can be reversed with sugammadex 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg. We investigated whether these doses of sugammadex can also reverse vecuronium at a similar level of block. METHODS:Sixty-five patients were randomly assigned, and 64 were analyzed in this controlled, superiority study. Participants received general anesthesia with propofol, sevoflurane, fentanyl, and vecuronium. Measurement of neuromuscular function was performed with acceleromyography (TOF-Watch-SX, Organon Teknika B.V., The Netherlands ). Once the block recovered spontaneously to four twitches in response to train-of-four stimulation, patients were randomly assigned to receive sugammadex 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg; neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg; or placebo. Time from study drug injection to normalized train-of-four ratio 0.9 and the incidence of incomplete reversal within 30 min were the primary outcome variables. Secondary outcome was the incidence of reparalysis (normalized train-of-four ratio less than 0.9). RESULTS:Sugammadex, in doses of 1.0 and 2.0 mg/kg, reversed a threshold train-of-four count of four to normalized train-of-four ratio of 0.9 or higher in all patients in 4.4 ± 2.3 min (mean ± SD) and 2.6 ± 1.6 min, respectively. Sugammadex 0.5 mg/kg reversed the block in 6.8 ± 4.1 min in 70% of patients (P < 0.0001 vs. 1.0 and 2.0 mg/kg), whereas neostigmine produced reversal in 11.3 ± 9.7 min in 77% of patients (P > 0.05 vs. sugammadex 0.5 mg/kg). The overall frequency of reparalysis was 18.7%, but this incidence varied from group to group. CONCLUSIONS:Sugammadex 1.0 mg/kg, unlike 0.5 mg/kg, properly reversed a threshold train-of-four count of four vecuronium-induced block but did not prevent reparalysis.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block that spontaneously recovered to a train-of-four count of four can be reversed with sugammadex 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg. We investigated whether these doses of sugammadex can also reverse vecuronium at a similar level of block. METHODS: Sixty-five patients were randomly assigned, and 64 were analyzed in this controlled, superiority study. Participants received general anesthesia with propofol, sevoflurane, fentanyl, and vecuronium. Measurement of neuromuscular function was performed with acceleromyography (TOF-Watch-SX, Organon Teknika B.V., The Netherlands ). Once the block recovered spontaneously to four twitches in response to train-of-four stimulation, patients were randomly assigned to receive sugammadex 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg; neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg; or placebo. Time from study drug injection to normalized train-of-four ratio 0.9 and the incidence of incomplete reversal within 30 min were the primary outcome variables. Secondary outcome was the incidence of reparalysis (normalized train-of-four ratio less than 0.9). RESULTS:Sugammadex, in doses of 1.0 and 2.0 mg/kg, reversed a threshold train-of-four count of four to normalized train-of-four ratio of 0.9 or higher in all patients in 4.4 ± 2.3 min (mean ± SD) and 2.6 ± 1.6 min, respectively. Sugammadex 0.5 mg/kg reversed the block in 6.8 ± 4.1 min in 70% of patients (P < 0.0001 vs. 1.0 and 2.0 mg/kg), whereas neostigmine produced reversal in 11.3 ± 9.7 min in 77% of patients (P > 0.05 vs. sugammadex 0.5 mg/kg). The overall frequency of reparalysis was 18.7%, but this incidence varied from group to group. CONCLUSIONS:Sugammadex 1.0 mg/kg, unlike 0.5 mg/kg, properly reversed a threshold train-of-four count of four vecuronium-induced block but did not prevent reparalysis.
Authors: Ákos I Fábián; Edömér Tassonyi; Vera Csernoch; Marianna Fedor; Tamás Sohajda; Lajos Szente; Béla Fülesdi Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2021-08-17 Impact factor: 2.217