Factors Associated With Decision to Use and Dosing of Sugammadex in Children: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Observational Study.
Journal
Anesthesia and analgesia
ISSN: 1526-7598
Titre abrégé: Anesth Analg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1310650
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jan 2024
19 Jan 2024
Historique:
medline:
23
1
2024
pubmed:
23
1
2024
entrez:
23
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Sugammadex was initially approved for reversal of neuromuscular blockade in adults in the United States in 2015. Limited data suggest sugammadex is widely used in pediatric anesthesia practice however the factors influencing use are not known. We explore patient, surgical, and institutional factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine or no reversal, and the decision to use 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dosing. Using data from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database, an EHR-derived registry, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. Eligible cases were performed between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, for children 0 to 17 years at US hospitals. Cases involved general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation and administration of rocuronium or vecuronium. Using generalized linear mixed models with institution and anesthesiologist-specific random intercepts, we measured the importance of a variety of patient, clinician, institution, anesthetic, and surgical risk factors in the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine, and the decision to use a 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dose. We then used intraclass correlation statistics to evaluate the proportion of variance contributed by institution and anesthesiologist specifically. There were 97,654 eligible anesthetics across 30 institutions. Of these 47.1% received sugammadex, 43.1% received neostigmine, and 9.8% received no reversal agent. Variability in the choice to use sugammadex was attributable primarily to institution (40.4%) and attending anesthesiologist (27.1%). Factors associated with sugammadex use (compared to neostigmine) include time from first institutional use of sugammadex (odds ratio [OR], 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.09, per month, P < .001), younger patient age groups (0-27 days OR, 2.59 [2.00-3.34], P < .001; 28 days-1 year OR, 2.72 [2.16-3.43], P < .001 vs 12-17 years), increased American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status (ASA III: OR, 1.32 [1.23-1.42], P < .001 ASA IV OR, 1.71 [1.46-2.00], P < .001 vs ASA I), neuromuscular disease (OR, 1.14 (1.04-1.26], P = .006), cardiac surgery (OR, 1.76 [1.40-2.22], P < .001), dose of neuromuscular blockade within the hour before reversal (>2 ED95s/kg OR, 4.58 (4.14-5.07], P < .001 vs none), and shorter case duration (case duration <60 minutes OR, 2.06 [1.75-2.43], P < .001 vs >300 minutes). Variation in sugammadex use was primarily explained by institution and attending anesthesiologist. Patient factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex included younger age, higher doses of neuromuscular blocking agents, and increased medical complexity.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Sugammadex was initially approved for reversal of neuromuscular blockade in adults in the United States in 2015. Limited data suggest sugammadex is widely used in pediatric anesthesia practice however the factors influencing use are not known. We explore patient, surgical, and institutional factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine or no reversal, and the decision to use 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dosing.
METHODS
METHODS
Using data from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database, an EHR-derived registry, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. Eligible cases were performed between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, for children 0 to 17 years at US hospitals. Cases involved general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation and administration of rocuronium or vecuronium. Using generalized linear mixed models with institution and anesthesiologist-specific random intercepts, we measured the importance of a variety of patient, clinician, institution, anesthetic, and surgical risk factors in the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine, and the decision to use a 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dose. We then used intraclass correlation statistics to evaluate the proportion of variance contributed by institution and anesthesiologist specifically.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were 97,654 eligible anesthetics across 30 institutions. Of these 47.1% received sugammadex, 43.1% received neostigmine, and 9.8% received no reversal agent. Variability in the choice to use sugammadex was attributable primarily to institution (40.4%) and attending anesthesiologist (27.1%). Factors associated with sugammadex use (compared to neostigmine) include time from first institutional use of sugammadex (odds ratio [OR], 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.09, per month, P < .001), younger patient age groups (0-27 days OR, 2.59 [2.00-3.34], P < .001; 28 days-1 year OR, 2.72 [2.16-3.43], P < .001 vs 12-17 years), increased American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status (ASA III: OR, 1.32 [1.23-1.42], P < .001 ASA IV OR, 1.71 [1.46-2.00], P < .001 vs ASA I), neuromuscular disease (OR, 1.14 (1.04-1.26], P = .006), cardiac surgery (OR, 1.76 [1.40-2.22], P < .001), dose of neuromuscular blockade within the hour before reversal (>2 ED95s/kg OR, 4.58 (4.14-5.07], P < .001 vs none), and shorter case duration (case duration <60 minutes OR, 2.06 [1.75-2.43], P < .001 vs >300 minutes).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Variation in sugammadex use was primarily explained by institution and attending anesthesiologist. Patient factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex included younger age, higher doses of neuromuscular blocking agents, and increased medical complexity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38259183
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006831
pii: 00000539-990000000-00710
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
ID : K08HL159327
Investigateurs
Anshuman Sharma
(A)
Robert E Freundlich
(RE)
Robert B Schonberger
(RB)
Surendrasingh Chhabada
(S)
Nathan L Pace
(NL)
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 International Anesthesia Research Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article.
Références
Sugammadex Prescribing Information. Merck & Co product circulars. Accessed January 27, 2021. https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/b/bridion/bridion_pi.pdf.
Dubovoy TZ, Saager L, Shah NJ, et al. Utilization patterns of perioperative neuromuscular blockade reversal in the United States: a retrospective observational study from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group. Anesth Analg. 2020;131:1510–1519.
Bash LD, Black W, Turzhitsky V, Urman RD. Neuromuscular blockade and reversal practice variability in the outpatient setting: insights from US utilization patterns. Anesth Analg. 2021;133:1437–1450.
Bash LD, Turzhitsky V, Black W, Urman RD. Neuromuscular blockade and reversal agent practice variability in the US inpatient surgical settings. Adv Ther. 2021;38:4736–4755.
Tobias JD. Current evidence for the use of sugammadex in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2017;27:118–125.
Grigg E. Sugammadex and neuromuscular reversal: special focus on neonatal and infant populations. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2020;33:374–380.
Stemhagen A, Bhangu P, Zhong W, Julian M, Deutsch G, Koro C. Knowledge and understanding of the safety and efficacy aspects of BRIDION® among Canadian anesthesiologists. Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2020;7:251–256.
Faulk DJ, Austin TM, Thomas JJ, Strupp K, Macrae AW, Yaster M. A survey of the Society for pediatric anesthesia on the use, monitoring, and antagonism of neuromuscular blockade. Anesth Analg. 2021;132:1518–1526.
Lang B, Han L, Zeng L, et al. Efficacy and safety of sugammadex for neuromuscular blockade reversal in pediatric patients: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22:295.
Saber HIES, Mousa SA, AbouRezk AR, Zaglool A. Recovery profile of sugammadex versus neostigmine in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization: a randomized double-blind study. Anesth Essays Res. 2021;15:272–278.
Beltran RJ, Mpody C, Nafiu OO, Tobias JD. Association of sugammadex or neostigmine with major postoperative pulmonary complications in children. Anesth Analg. 2022;135:1041–1047.
Zhong W, Liu X, Bash LD, Bortnichak E, Horrow J, Koro C. Neuromuscular blocking agents and reversal agents among hospitalized children: a Cerner database study. Hosp Pharm. 2021;56:424–429.
Gaver RS, Brenn BR, Gartley A, Donahue BS. Retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of sugammadex versus neostigmine for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade in children. Anesth Analg. 2019;129:1124–1129.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1453–1457.
Colquhoun DA, Shanks AM, Kapeles SR, et al. Considerations for integration of perioperative electronic health records across institutions for research and quality improvement: the approach taken by the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group. Anesth Analg. 2020;130:1133–1146.
Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group, Department of Anesthesiology at The University of Michigan. Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group phenotype browser. 2019. Accessed January 5, 2021. http://phenotypes.mpog.org.
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.
Merlo J, Chaix B, Ohlsson H, et al. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:290–297.
McIsaac DI, Wijeysundera DN, Bryson GL, Huang A, McCartney CJL, van Walraven C. Hospital-, anesthesiologist-, and patient-level variation in primary anesthesia type for hip fracture surgery: a population-based cross-sectional analysis. Anesthesiology. 2018;129:1121–1131.
Syed F, Trifa M, Uffman JC, Tumin D, Tobias JD. Monitoring of sugammadex dosing at a large tertiary care pediatric hospital. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2018;3:e113.
Driessen JJ, Robertson EN, Booij LHDJ. Acceleromyography in neonates and small infants: baseline calibration and recovery of the responses after neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:11–15.
Owusu-Bediako K, Munch R, Mathias J, Tobias JD. Feasibility of intraoperative quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring in children using electromyography. Saudi J Anaesth. 2022;16:412–418.
Klucka J, Kosinova M, Krikava I, Stoudek R, Toukalkova M, Stourac P. Residual neuromuscular block in paediatric anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122:e1–e2.
Colquhoun DA, Vaughn MT, Bash LD, et al. Association between the choice of reversal agent for neuromuscular block and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients at increased risk undergoing non-emergency surgery: STIL-STRONGER, a multicentre matched cohort study. Br J Anaesth. 2023;130:e148–e159. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.023.
doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.023
Janda AM, Spence J, Dubovoy T, et al. Multicentre analysis of practice patterns regarding benzodiazepine use in cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2022;128:772–784.
Mathis MR, Janda AM, Kheterpal S, et al. Patient-, clinician-, and institution-level variation in inotrope use for cardiac surgery: a multicenter observational analysis. Anesthesiology. 2023;139:122–141.
Brown SE, Spellman K, Cassidy R, Nause-Osthoff R, et al. A retrospective observational cross-sectional study of intraoperative neuromuscular blockade medication choice and dosing in a paediatric referral hospital after introduction of sugammadex. Br J Anaesth. 2023;131:e117–e120.