Original Article

CME Article: Sugammadex Reduces PACU Recovery Time after Abdominal Surgery Compared with Neostigmine

Authors: Jin Deng, MS, Maha Balouch, MA, Michael Albrink, MD, Enrico M. Camporesi, MD

Abstract

Objective: This study blindly evaluated sugammadex compared with neostigmine on length of stay in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU).

Methods: Fifty patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy or abdominal wall hernia repair consented to receive either sugammadex (2 mg/kg) or neostigmine (0.07 mg/kg) for the reversal of rocuronium neuromuscular blockade. Reversal agents were administered during surgical closing, and the train of four was measured until a twitch ratio of T4:T1 ≥ 0.9 was obtained to signify a robust reversal. Postreversal outcomes also were measured during PACU stay. Aldrete scores, pain visual analog scale score, and nausea were measured during the PACU stay.

Results: Patients receiving sugammadex experienced a shorter PACU stay at the time of discharge than patients receiving neostigmine, by an average of 12 minutes (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Sugammadex patients had a significantly shorter PACU stay.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first.

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view your purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($15)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Feldheiser A, Aziz O, Baldini G, et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 2: consensus statement for anaesthesia practice. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2016;60:289–334.
 
2. Tramer MR, Fuchs-Buder T. Omitting antagonism of neuromuscular block: effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting and risk of residual paralysis: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth 1999;82:379–386.
 
3. Proakis AG, Harris GB. Comparative penetration of glycopyrrolate and atropine across the blood-brain and placental barriers in anesthetized dogs. Anesthesiology 1978;48:339–344.
 
4. Hristovska AM, Duch P, Allingstrup M, et al. Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;8:CD012763.
 
5. Turner DA, Smith G. Evaluation of the combined effects of atropine and neostigmine on the lower oesophageal sphincter. Br J Anaesth 1985;57:956–959.
 
6. Koyuncu O, Turhanoglu S, Ozbakis Akkurt C, et al. Comparison of sugammadex and conventional reversal on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, blinded trial. J Clin Anesth 2015;27:51–56.
 
7. Hogg RM, Mirakhur RK. Sugammadex: a selective relaxant binding agent for reversal of neuromuscular block. Expert Rev Neurother 2009;9:599–608.
 
8. Carron M, Zarantonello F, Tellaroli P, et al. Efficacy and safety of sugammadex compared to neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Anesth 2016;35:1–12.
 
9. Khuenl-Brady KS, Wattwil M, Vanacker BF, et al. Sugammadex provides faster reversal of vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade compared with neostigmine: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Anesth Analg 2010;110:64–73.
 
10. Geldner G, Niskanen M, Laurila P, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing sugammadex and neostigmine at different depths of neuromuscular blockade in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Anaesthesia 2012; 67:991–998.
 
11. Enten G, Albrink M, Deng J, et al. Sugammadex administration shortens reversal times but not operating room turnover times. Case Stud Surg 2019;5:27–33.
 
12. Chae YJ, Joe HB, Oh J, et al. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes following sugammadex use in colorectal surgery patients; retrospective study. J Clin Med 2019;8:97.
 
13. Putz L, Dransart C, Jamart J, et al. Operating room discharge after deep neuromuscular block reversed with sugammadex compared with shallow block reversed with neostigmine: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth 2016;35:107–113.
 
14. Mangar D, Pease S, Guzman S, et al. PACU length of stay after neuromuscular blocker reversal with sugammadex. Abstract presentation at the American Society of Anesthesiology meeting, Orlando, FL, October 22, 2019.
 
15. Butterly A, Bittner EA, George E, et al. Postoperative residual curarization from intermediate-acting neuromuscular blocking agents delays recovery room discharge. Br J Anaesth 2010;105:304–309.
 
16. Oh TK, Ji E, Na HS. The effect of neuromuscular reversal agent on postoperative pain after laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery: comparison between the neostigmine and sugammadex. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e16142.
 
17. Castro DS Jr, Leão P, Borges S, et al. Sugammadex reduces postoperative pain after laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a randomized trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2014;24:420–423.
 
18. Williams WH 3rd, Cata JP, Lasala JD, et al. Effect of reversal of deep neuromuscular block with sugammadex or moderate block by neostigmine on shoulder pain in elderly patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Br J Anaesth 2020;124:164–172.
 
19. Weissman C. The enhanced postoperative care system. J Clin Anesth 2005; 17:314–322.
 
20. Paton F, Paulden M, Chambers D, et al. Sugammadex compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate for routine reversal of neuromuscular block: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Br J Anaesth 2010;105:558–567.
 
21. De Robertis E, Zito Marinosci G, Romano GM, et al. The use of sugammadex for bariatric surgery: analysis of recovery time from neuromuscular blockade and possible economic impact. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2016;8:317–322.
 
22. Lee YJ, Money KL, Elliott A. Sugammadex compared with neostigmine/ glycopyrrolate: an analysis of total PACU time, responsiveness, and potential for economic impact. Innov Pharm 2019;10:Article 1.