BACKGROUND: Residual neuromuscular blockade after surgery is associated with airway obstruction, hypoxia, and respiratory complications. Compared with neostigmine, sugammadex reverses neuromuscular blockade to a train-of-four ratio > 0.9 more rapidly. It is unknown, however, whether the superior reversal profile of sugammadex improves clinically relevant measures of strength in the early postoperative period. METHODS: Patients undergoing general, gynecological, or urologic surgery were randomized to receive either neostigmine (70 µg·kg-1, maximum 5 mg) or sugammadex (2 or 4 mg·kg-1) to reverse neuromuscular blockade. The primary outcome was the ability to breathe deeply measured by incentive spirometry at 30, 60, and 120 min after reversal. RESULTS: We randomized 62 patients to either a neostigmine (n = 31) or sugammadex (n = 31) group. The incentive spirometry volume recovery trajectory was not different between the two groups (P = 0.35). Median spirometry volumes at baseline, 30, 60, and 120 min postoperatively were 2650 vs 2500 mL, 1775 vs 1750 mL, 1375 vs 2000 mL, and 1800 vs 1950 mL for the sugammadex and neostigmine groups, respectively. Postoperative incentive spirometry decrease from baseline was not different between the two groups. Hand grip strength, the ability to sit unaided, train-of-four ratio on postanesthesia care unit (PACU) admission, time to extubation, time to PACU discharge readiness, and Quality of Recovery-15 scores were also not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of postoperative strength, such as incentive spirometry, hand group strength, and the ability to sit up in the early postoperative period were not different in patients who received neostigmine or sugammadex for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02909439); registered: 21 September, 2016.
BACKGROUND: Residual neuromuscular blockade after surgery is associated with airway obstruction, hypoxia, and respiratory complications. Compared with neostigmine, sugammadex reverses neuromuscular blockade to a train-of-four ratio > 0.9 more rapidly. It is unknown, however, whether the superior reversal profile of sugammadex improves clinically relevant measures of strength in the early postoperative period. METHODS: Patients undergoing general, gynecological, or urologic surgery were randomized to receive either neostigmine (70 µg·kg-1, maximum 5 mg) or sugammadex (2 or 4 mg·kg-1) to reverse neuromuscular blockade. The primary outcome was the ability to breathe deeply measured by incentive spirometry at 30, 60, and 120 min after reversal. RESULTS: We randomized 62 patients to either a neostigmine (n = 31) or sugammadex (n = 31) group. The incentive spirometry volume recovery trajectory was not different between the two groups (P = 0.35). Median spirometry volumes at baseline, 30, 60, and 120 min postoperatively were 2650 vs 2500 mL, 1775 vs 1750 mL, 1375 vs 2000 mL, and 1800 vs 1950 mL for the sugammadex and neostigmine groups, respectively. Postoperative incentive spirometry decrease from baseline was not different between the two groups. Hand grip strength, the ability to sit unaided, train-of-four ratio on postanesthesia care unit (PACU) admission, time to extubation, time to PACU discharge readiness, and Quality of Recovery-15 scores were also not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of postoperative strength, such as incentive spirometry, hand group strength, and the ability to sit up in the early postoperative period were not different in patients who received neostigmine or sugammadex for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02909439); registered: 21 September, 2016.
Authors: Glenn S Murphy; Joseph W Szokol; Jesse H Marymont; Mark Franklin; Michael J Avram; Jeffery S Vender Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: B Brueckmann; N Sasaki; P Grobara; M K Li; T Woo; J de Bie; M Maktabi; J Lee; J Kwo; R Pino; A S Sabouri; F McGovern; A K Staehr-Rye; M Eikermann Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2015-05-02 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Curtis N Sessler; Mark S Gosnell; Mary Jo Grap; Gretchen M Brophy; Pam V O'Neal; Kimberly A Keane; Eljim P Tesoro; R K Elswick Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 21.405
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: 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: 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