Impact on grafted kidney function of rocuronium-sugammadex vs cisatracurium-neostigmine strategy for neuromuscular block management. An Italian single-center, 2014-2017 retrospective cohort case-control study.
Anesthesia
Cisatracurium
End-stage renal disease
Kidney transplantation
Neostigmine
Neuromuscular block
Rocuronium
Sugammadex
Journal
Perioperative medicine (London, England)
ISSN: 2047-0525
Titre abrégé: Perioper Med (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101609072
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Jan 2022
13 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
22
02
2021
accepted:
18
11
2021
entrez:
13
1
2022
pubmed:
14
1
2022
medline:
14
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The impact of sugammadex in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing kidney transplantation is still far from being defined. The aim of the study is to compare sugammadex to neostigmine for reversal of rocuronium- and cisatracurium-induced neuromuscular block (NMB), respectively, in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. A single-center, 2014-2017 retrospective cohort case-control study was performed. A total of 350 patients undergoing kidney transplantation, equally divided between a sugammadex group (175 patients) and a neostigmine group (175 patients), were considered. Postoperative kidney function, evaluated by monitoring of serum creatinine and urea and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), was the endpoint. Other endpoints were anesthetic and surgical times, post-anesthesia care unit length of stay, postoperative intensive care unit admission, and recurrent NMB or complications. No significant differences in patient or, with the exception of drugs involved in NMB management, anesthetic, and surgical characteristics, were observed between the two groups. Serum creatinine (median [interquartile range]: 596.0 [478.0-749.0] vs 639.0 [527.7-870.0] μmol/L, p = 0.0128) and serum urea (14.9 [10.8-21.6] vs 17.1 [13.1-22.0] mmol/L, p = 0.0486) were lower, while eGFR (8.0 [6.0-11.0] vs 8.0 [6.0-10.0], p = 0.0473) was higher in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group after surgery. The sugammadex group showed significantly lower incidence of postoperative severe hypoxemia (0.6% vs 6.3%, p = 0.006), shorter PACU stay (70 [60-90] min vs 90 [60-105] min, p < 0.001), and reduced ICU admissions (0.6% vs 8.0%, p = 0.001). Compared to cisatracurium-neostigmine, the rocuronium-sugammadex strategy for reversal of NMB showed a better recovery profile in patients undergoing kidney transplantation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The impact of sugammadex in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing kidney transplantation is still far from being defined. The aim of the study is to compare sugammadex to neostigmine for reversal of rocuronium- and cisatracurium-induced neuromuscular block (NMB), respectively, in patients undergoing kidney transplantation.
METHODS
METHODS
A single-center, 2014-2017 retrospective cohort case-control study was performed. A total of 350 patients undergoing kidney transplantation, equally divided between a sugammadex group (175 patients) and a neostigmine group (175 patients), were considered. Postoperative kidney function, evaluated by monitoring of serum creatinine and urea and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), was the endpoint. Other endpoints were anesthetic and surgical times, post-anesthesia care unit length of stay, postoperative intensive care unit admission, and recurrent NMB or complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
No significant differences in patient or, with the exception of drugs involved in NMB management, anesthetic, and surgical characteristics, were observed between the two groups. Serum creatinine (median [interquartile range]: 596.0 [478.0-749.0] vs 639.0 [527.7-870.0] μmol/L, p = 0.0128) and serum urea (14.9 [10.8-21.6] vs 17.1 [13.1-22.0] mmol/L, p = 0.0486) were lower, while eGFR (8.0 [6.0-11.0] vs 8.0 [6.0-10.0], p = 0.0473) was higher in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group after surgery. The sugammadex group showed significantly lower incidence of postoperative severe hypoxemia (0.6% vs 6.3%, p = 0.006), shorter PACU stay (70 [60-90] min vs 90 [60-105] min, p < 0.001), and reduced ICU admissions (0.6% vs 8.0%, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to cisatracurium-neostigmine, the rocuronium-sugammadex strategy for reversal of NMB showed a better recovery profile in patients undergoing kidney transplantation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35022076
doi: 10.1186/s13741-021-00231-2
pii: 10.1186/s13741-021-00231-2
pmc: PMC8756660
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Feb 18;8:43-52
pubmed: 26937203
Ren Fail. 2011;33(10):1019-24
pubmed: 22013936
Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2016 Jun;32(6):292-301
pubmed: 27377841
J Crit Care. 2009 Mar;24(1):29-35
pubmed: 19272536
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Mar 1;118(3):317-334
pubmed: 28186222
J Anesth. 2011 Apr;25(2):241-6
pubmed: 21225291
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2004 Jun;39 Suppl 1:S3-13
pubmed: 15265610
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007 Jan 1;175(1):9-15
pubmed: 17023729
Br J Anaesth. 2020 Jan;124(1):63-72
pubmed: 31607388
Anesthesiology. 2020 Jun;132(6):1371-1381
pubmed: 32282427
Bratisl Lek Listy. 2015;116(12):746-50
pubmed: 26924146
Transplant Proc. 2019 Sep;51(7):2265-2267
pubmed: 31400973
Nephrourol Mon. 2016 Aug 01;8(5):e39292
pubmed: 27878113
Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2018 Oct 30;64(13):74-78
pubmed: 30403599
Transplantation. 2021 Aug 1;105(8):1677-1684
pubmed: 33323765
JA Clin Rep. 2018 Jul 25;4(1):56
pubmed: 32025948
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016 Sep;33(9):690-1
pubmed: 26886140
Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2011 Apr;32(3):159-67
pubmed: 21370235
Anesthesiology. 2017 Jan;126(1):173-190
pubmed: 27820709
Anaesthesia. 2020 Mar;75(3):348-352
pubmed: 31721151
Nephrourol Mon. 2016 Jun 07;8(4):e37666
pubmed: 27795953
Br J Anaesth. 2010 Jan;104(1):31-9
pubmed: 20007792
Anesthesiology. 2006 Apr;104(4):667-74
pubmed: 16571960
Br J Anaesth. 2015 May;114(5):777-84
pubmed: 25829395
Am J Manag Care. 2015 Jan;21(1 Suppl):S4-11
pubmed: 25734418
Anesthesiology. 2015 Dec;123(6):1301-11
pubmed: 26492475
Br J Anaesth. 2008 May;100(5):622-30
pubmed: 18385265
Transplant Proc. 2021 Apr;53(3):818-824
pubmed: 33069485
Br J Anaesth. 2012 Sep;109(3):382-90
pubmed: 22732111
Can J Anaesth. 2020 Dec;67(12):1789-1797
pubmed: 32949009
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014 Aug;20(4):411-9
pubmed: 24979712
J Clin Anesth. 2016 Dec;35:1-12
pubmed: 27871504
Br J Anaesth. 2008 Oct;101(4):492-7
pubmed: 18653492
J Clin Med. 2018 Sep 28;7(10):
pubmed: 30274164
Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Feb;7(2):129-140
pubmed: 30224322
Med Sci Monit. 2016 Mar 10;22:803-9
pubmed: 26963316
Anesthesiol Clin. 2017 Sep;35(3):439-452
pubmed: 28784219
Minerva Anestesiol. 2003 Jul-Aug;69(7-8):605-11, 612, 5
pubmed: 14564242
J Clin Anesth. 2020 Oct;65:109895
pubmed: 32464475
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015 Oct;32(10):681-6
pubmed: 26225497