A randomized-controlled trial of sugammadex versus neostigmine: impact on early postoperative strength.
Une étude randomisée contrôlée comparant le sugammadex à la néostigmine : impact sur la force postopératoire initiale.
Journal
Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie
ISSN: 1496-8975
Titre abrégé: Can J Anaesth
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8701709
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
17
10
2019
accepted:
02
03
2020
revised:
02
03
2020
pubmed:
15
5
2020
medline:
20
2
2021
entrez:
15
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. Patients undergoing general, gynecological, or urologic surgery were randomized to receive either neostigmine (70 µg·kg 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. 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. www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02909439); registered: 21 September, 2016. RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Les blocs neuromusculaires résiduels après une chirurgie sont associés à l’obstruction des voies aériennes, à l’hypoxie et à des complications respiratoires. Par rapport à la néostigmine, le sugammadex neutralise le bloc neuromusculaire à un ratio de train-de-quatre (TOF) > 0,9 plus rapidement. Nous ne savons toutefois pas si le profil de neutralisation supérieur du sugammadex améliore les mesures pertinentes d’un point de vue clinique de la force en période postopératoire initiale. MéTHODE: Nous avons randomisé des patients subissant une chirurgie générale, gynécologique ou urologique à recevoir de la néostigmine (70 µg·kg
Sections du résumé
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
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.
RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Les blocs neuromusculaires résiduels après une chirurgie sont associés à l’obstruction des voies aériennes, à l’hypoxie et à des complications respiratoires. Par rapport à la néostigmine, le sugammadex neutralise le bloc neuromusculaire à un ratio de train-de-quatre (TOF) > 0,9 plus rapidement. Nous ne savons toutefois pas si le profil de neutralisation supérieur du sugammadex améliore les mesures pertinentes d’un point de vue clinique de la force en période postopératoire initiale. MéTHODE: Nous avons randomisé des patients subissant une chirurgie générale, gynécologique ou urologique à recevoir de la néostigmine (70 µg·kg
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(fre)
RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Les blocs neuromusculaires résiduels après une chirurgie sont associés à l’obstruction des voies aériennes, à l’hypoxie et à des complications respiratoires. Par rapport à la néostigmine, le sugammadex neutralise le bloc neuromusculaire à un ratio de train-de-quatre (TOF) > 0,9 plus rapidement. Nous ne savons toutefois pas si le profil de neutralisation supérieur du sugammadex améliore les mesures pertinentes d’un point de vue clinique de la force en période postopératoire initiale. MéTHODE: Nous avons randomisé des patients subissant une chirurgie générale, gynécologique ou urologique à recevoir de la néostigmine (70 µg·kg
Identifiants
pubmed: 32405975
doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01695-4
pii: 10.1007/s12630-020-01695-4
doi:
Substances chimiques
Neuromuscular Nondepolarizing Agents
0
Sugammadex
361LPM2T56
Neostigmine
3982TWQ96G
Rocuronium
WRE554RFEZ
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02909439']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
959-969Références
Plaud B, Debaene B, Donati F, Marty J. Residual paralysis after emergence from anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2010; 112: 1013-22.
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181cded07
pubmed: 20234315
Bulka CM, Terekhov MA, Martin BJ, Dmochowski RR, Hayes RM, Ehrenfeld JM. Nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents, reversal, and risk of postoperative pneumonia. Anesthesiology 2016; 125: 647-55.
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001279
pubmed: 27496656
Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Marymont JH, Franklin M, Avram MJ, Vender JS. Residual paralysis at the time of tracheal extubation. Anesth Analg 2005; 100: 1840-5.
doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000151159.55655.CB
pubmed: 15920224
Saager L, Maiese EM, Bash LD, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and consequences of residual neuromuscular block in the United States: the prospective, observational, multicenter RECITE-US study. J Clin Anesth 2019; 55: 33-41.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.12.042
pubmed: 30594097
Gijsenbergh F, Ramael S, Houwing N, van Iersel T. First human exposure of Org 25969, a novel agent to reverse the action of rocuronium bromide. Anesthesiology 2005; 103: 695-703.
doi: 10.1097/00000542-200510000-00007
pubmed: 16192761
Jones RK, Caldwell JE, Brull SJ, Soto RG. Reversal of profound rocuronium-induced blockade with sugammadex: a randomized comparison with neostigmine. Anesthesiology 2008; 109: 816-24.
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31818a3fee
pubmed: 18946293
Hristovska AM, Duch P, Allingstrup M, Afshari A. Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012763 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012763
pubmed: 28806470
pmcid: 6483345
Brueckmann B, Sasaki N, Grobara P, et al. Effects of sugammadex on incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade: a randomized, controlled study. Br J Anaesth 2015; 115: 743-51.
doi: 10.1093/bja/aev104
pubmed: 25935840
Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 1338-44.
doi: 10.1164/rccm.2107138
pubmed: 12421743
Aldrete JA. The post-anesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7: 89-91.
doi: 10.1016/0952-8180(94)00001-K
pubmed: 7772368
Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA. Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperaitve quality of recovery score. Anesthesiology 2013; 118: 1332-40.
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318289b84b
pubmed: 23411725
Miller DP, Ovation Research Group. Bootstrap 101: obtain robust confidence intervals for any statistic. SAS Conference Proceedings of SAS Users Group International Conference 29: Statistics and Data Analysis 2004; paper #193-129.
Bastin R, Moraine JJ, Bardoesky G, Kahn RJ, Melot C. Incentive spirometry performance. A reliable indicator of pulmonary function in the early postoperative period after lobectomy? Chest 1997; 111: 559-63.
Bennett-Guerrero E, Phillips-Bute B, Waweru PM, Gaca JG, Spann JC, Milano CA. Pilot study of sternal planting for primary closure of the sternum in cardiac surgical patients. Innovations 2011; 6: 382-8.
doi: 10.1177/155698451100600608
pubmed: 22436774
Brull SJ, Kopman AF. Current status of neuromuscular reversal and monitoring: challenges and opportunities. Anesthesiology 2017; 126: 173-90.
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001409
pubmed: 27820709
Alaparthi GK, Augustine AJ, Anand R, Mahale A. Comparison of diaphragmatic breathing exercise, volume and flow incentive spirometry, on diaphragm excursion and pulmonary function in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Minim Invasive Surg 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1967532 .
doi: 10.1155/2016/1967532
pubmed: 27525116
pmcid: 4972934
Blobner M, Eriksson LI, Scholz J, Motsch J, Della Rocca G, Prins ME. Reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex compared with neostigmine during sevoflurane anaesthesia: results of a randomised, controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27: 874-81.
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833d56b7
pubmed: 20683334
Baillard C, Bourdiau S, Le Toumelin P, et al. Assessing residual neuromuscular blockade using acceleromyography can be deceptive in postoperative awake patients. Anesth Analg 2004; 98: 854-7.
pubmed: 14980952
Kirkegaard H, Heier T, Caldwell JE. Efficacy of tactile-guided reversal from cisatracurium-induced neuromuscular block. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 45-50.
doi: 10.1097/00000542-200201000-00013
pubmed: 11753000
Kopman AF, Kopman DJ, Ng J, Zank LM. Antagonism of profound cisatracurium and rocuronium block: the role of objective assessment of neuromuscular function. J Clin Anesth 2005; 17: 30-5.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2004.03.009
pubmed: 15721727
Cammu G, De Witte J, De Veylder J, et al. Postoperative residual paralysis in outpatients versus inpatients. Anesth Analg 2006; 102: 426-9.
doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000195543.61123.1f
pubmed: 16428537
Naguib M, Kopman AF, Lien CA, Hunter JM, Lopez A, Brull SJ. A survey of current management of neuromuscular block in the United States and Europe. Anesth Analg 2010; 111: 110-9.
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181c07428
pubmed: 19910616
Flockton EA, Mastronardi P, Hunter JM, et al. Reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block with sugammadex is faster than reversal of cisatracurium-induced block with neostigmine. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100: 622-30.
doi: 10.1093/bja/aen037
pubmed: 18385265