Sachin Kheterpal1, Michelle T Vaughn, Timur Z Dubovoy, Nirav J Shah, Lori D Bash, Douglas A Colquhoun, Amy M Shanks, Michael R Mathis, Roy G Soto, Amit Bardia, Karsten Bartels, Patrick J McCormick, Robert B Schonberger, Leif Saager. 1. From the Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (S.K., M.T.V., T.Z.D., N.J.S., D.A.C., A.M.S., M.R.M., L.S.) Center for Observational and Real World Evidence, Merck & Co. Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey (L.D.B.) Department of Anesthesiology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan (R.G.S.) Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (A.B., R.B.S.) Department of Anesthesiology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado (K.B.) Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York (P.J.M.). Current position: Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Lower Saxony, Germany (L.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Five percent of adult patients undergoing noncardiac inpatient surgery experience a major pulmonary complication. The authors hypothesized that the choice of neuromuscular blockade reversal (neostigmine vs. sugammadex) may be associated with a lower incidence of major pulmonary complications. METHODS: Twelve U.S. Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group hospitals were included in a multicenter observational matched-cohort study of surgical cases between January 2014 and August 2018. Adult patients undergoing elective inpatient noncardiac surgical procedures with general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation receiving a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade agent and reversal were included. Exact matching criteria included institution, sex, age, comorbidities, obesity, surgical procedure type, and neuromuscular blockade agent (rocuronium vs. vecuronium). Other preoperative and intraoperative factors were compared and adjusted in the case of residual imbalance. The composite primary outcome was major postoperative pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, respiratory failure, or other pulmonary complications (including pneumonitis; pulmonary congestion; iatrogenic pulmonary embolism, infarction, or pneumothorax). Secondary outcomes focused on the components of pneumonia and respiratory failure. RESULTS: Of 30,026 patients receiving sugammadex, 22,856 were matched to 22,856 patients receiving neostigmine. Out of 45,712 patients studied, 1,892 (4.1%) were diagnosed with the composite primary outcome (3.5% sugammadex vs. 4.8% neostigmine). A total of 796 (1.7%) patients had pneumonia (1.3% vs. 2.2%), and 582 (1.3%) respiratory failure (0.8% vs. 1.7%). In multivariable analysis, sugammadex administration was associated with a 30% reduced risk of pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.77), 47% reduced risk of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.62), and 55% reduced risk of respiratory failure (adjusted odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.56), compared to neostigmine. CONCLUSIONS: Among a generalizable cohort of adult patients undergoing inpatient surgery at U.S. hospitals, the use of sugammadex was associated with a clinically and statistically significant lower incidence of major pulmonary complications.
BACKGROUND: Five percent of adult patients undergoing noncardiac inpatient surgery experience a major pulmonary complication. The authors hypothesized that the choice of neuromuscular blockade reversal (neostigmine vs. sugammadex) may be associated with a lower incidence of major pulmonary complications. METHODS: Twelve U.S. Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group hospitals were included in a multicenter observational matched-cohort study of surgical cases between January 2014 and August 2018. Adult patients undergoing elective inpatient noncardiac surgical procedures with general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation receiving a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade agent and reversal were included. Exact matching criteria included institution, sex, age, comorbidities, obesity, surgical procedure type, and neuromuscular blockade agent (rocuronium vs. vecuronium). Other preoperative and intraoperative factors were compared and adjusted in the case of residual imbalance. The composite primary outcome was major postoperative pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, respiratory failure, or other pulmonary complications (including pneumonitis; pulmonary congestion; iatrogenic pulmonary embolism, infarction, or pneumothorax). Secondary outcomes focused on the components of pneumonia and respiratory failure. RESULTS: Of 30,026 patients receiving sugammadex, 22,856 were matched to 22,856 patients receiving neostigmine. Out of 45,712 patients studied, 1,892 (4.1%) were diagnosed with the composite primary outcome (3.5% sugammadex vs. 4.8% neostigmine). A total of 796 (1.7%) patients had pneumonia (1.3% vs. 2.2%), and 582 (1.3%) respiratory failure (0.8% vs. 1.7%). In multivariable analysis, sugammadex administration was associated with a 30% reduced risk of pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.77), 47% reduced risk of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.62), and 55% reduced risk of respiratory failure (adjusted odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.56), compared to neostigmine. CONCLUSIONS: Among a generalizable cohort of adult patients undergoing inpatient surgery at U.S. hospitals, the use of sugammadex was associated with a clinically and statistically significant lower incidence of major pulmonary complications.
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lars H Lundstrøm; Christophe Hv Duez; Anders K Nørskov; Charlotte V Rosenstock; Jakob L Thomsen; Ann Merete Møller; Søren Strande; Jørn Wetterslev Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-17
Authors: Catherine M Bulka; Maxim A Terekhov; Barbara J Martin; Roger R Dmochowski; Rachel M Hayes; Jesse M Ehrenfeld Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Glenn S Murphy; Joseph W Szokol; Michael J Avram; Steven B Greenberg; Torin Shear; Jeffery S Vender; Jayla Gray; Elizabeth Landry Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2013-01-21 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: M H Bruintjes; E V van Helden; A E Braat; A Dahan; G J Scheffer; C J van Laarhoven; M C Warlé Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Leif Saager; Eric M Maiese; Lori D Bash; Tricia A Meyer; Harold Minkowitz; Scott Groudine; Beverly K Philip; Pedro Tanaka; Tong Joo Gan; Yiliam Rodriguez-Blanco; Roy Soto; Olaf Heisel Journal: J Clin Anesth Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 9.452
Authors: Ib Jammer; Nadine Wickboldt; Michael Sander; Andrew Smith; Marcus J Schultz; Paolo Pelosi; Brigitte Leva; Andrew Rhodes; Andreas Hoeft; Bernhard Walder; Michelle S Chew; Rupert M Pearse Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Germán Echeverry; Lily Polskin; Luis E Tollinche; Kenneth Seier; Kay See Tan; Patrick J McCormick; Gregory W Fischer; Florence M Grant Journal: Perioper Care Oper Room Manag Date: 2021-07-16
Authors: Robert B Schonberger; Antonio Gonzalez-Fiol; Kristen L Fardelmann; Amit Bardia; George Michel; Feng Dai; Trevor Banack; Aymen Alian Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Robert B Schonberger; Amit Bardia; Feng Dai; George Michel; David Yanez; Jeptha P Curtis; Michelle T Vaughn; Matthew M Burg; Michael Mathis; Sachin Kheterpal; Shamsuddin Akhtar; Nirav Shah Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Gen Li; Robert E Freundlich; Rajnish K Gupta; Christina J Hayhurst; Chi H Le; Barbara J Martin; Matthew S Shotwell; Jonathan P Wanderer Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 8.986
Authors: Timur Z Dubovoy; Leif Saager; Nirav J Shah; Douglas A Colquhoun; Michael R Mathis; Steven Kapeles; Graciela Mentz; Sachin Kheterpal; Michelle T Vaughn Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 6.627