» Articles » PMID: 32099426

Impact of Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine/Glycopyrrolate on Perioperative Efficiency

Overview
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Health Services
Date 2020 Feb 27
PMID 32099426
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Neuromuscular blockade in the operating room necessitates the utilization of reversal agents to accelerate postoperative recovery and sustain operating room patient throughput. Cholinesterase inhibitors represent the historical standard of care for neuromuscular blockade reversal within anesthesia practice. Sugammadex, a synthetic gamma-cyclodextrin, was introduced to the market with evidence of more rapid and predictable reversal of neuromuscular blockade compared to alternative agents. Higher medication acquisition costs have limited more extensive use of sugammadex compared to that of neostigmine/glycopyrrolate. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of sugammadex versus neostigmine/glycopyrrolate on perioperative efficiency to validate medication acquisition cost value.

Methods: A retrospective investigation was performed of patients with a surgical procedure at Houston Methodist Hospital from July 31, 2017 through August 1, 2018. The primary endpoint was time from reversal medication administration to operating room exit. Patient-specific doses were assessed to calculate average medication acquisition costs. The economic benefits of sugammadex were measured through review of average operating room and postanesthesia care unit costs per minute.

Results: There were a total of 640 surgical cases at Houston Methodist Hospital eligible for inclusion into the research study. The time from medication administration to operating room exit was significantly faster for sugammadex compared to neostigmine/glycopyrrolate (<0.001) upon univariate analysis. However, when measured with linear regression, the difference in operating room exit time between sugammadex and neostigmine/glycopyrrolate was no longer statistically significant (=0.122). Medication acquisition cost review highlighted a difference of $178.20, favoring use of neostigmine/glycopyrrolate.

Conclusion: The utilization of sugammadex does not correlate to consequential time saved in the operating room or extrapolation to workflow capacity for increased surgical case volume. Consideration of the medication acquisition cost promotes more restrictive use of sugammadex to indications with clinical relevance.

Citing Articles

Cost-Effectiveness of Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine to Reverse Neuromuscular Blockade in a University Hospital in Taiwan: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Lan W, Tam K, Chen J, Cata J, Cherng Y, Chou Y Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(2).

PMID: 36673608 PMC: 9859243. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11020240.


Sugammadex versus neostigmine for neuromuscular blockade reversal in outpatient surgeries: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate efficacy and associated healthcare cost in an academic center.

Fiorda Diaz J, Echeverria-Villalobos M, Esparza Gutierrez A, Dada O, Stoicea N, Ackermann W Front Med (Lausanne). 2022; 9:1072711.

PMID: 36569123 PMC: 9772266. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1072711.


Sugammadex versus neostigmine for routine reversal of neuromuscular blockade and the effect on perioperative efficiency.

Moss A, Powell M, Morgan C, Tubinis M Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2022; 35(5):599-603.

PMID: 35991723 PMC: 9373753. DOI: 10.1080/08998280.2022.2079921.


Recovery Profile of Sugammadex versus Neostigmine in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Cardiac Catheterization: A Randomized Double-Blind Study.

Saber H, Mousa S, Abourezk A, Zaglool A Anesth Essays Res. 2022; 15(3):272-278.

PMID: 35320954 PMC: 8936865. DOI: 10.4103/aer.aer_139_21.


Sugammadex, the Guardian of Deep Muscle Relaxation During Conventional and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: A Narrative Review.

Sun Y, Wu Z, Wang Q, Chen R, Sun S, Lin Y Drug Des Devel Ther. 2021; 15:3893-3901.

PMID: 34548781 PMC: 8449549. DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S328682.


References
1.
Carron M, Baratto F, Zarantonello F, Ori C . Sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular blockade: a retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in a single center. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016; 8:43-52. PMC: 4762464. DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S100921. View

2.
Brueckmann B, Sasaki N, Grobara P, Li M, Woo T, de Bie J . Effects of sugammadex on incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade: a randomized, controlled study. Br J Anaesth. 2015; 115(5):743-51. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev104. View

3.
Ledowski T, Hillyard S, Kozman A, Johnston F, Gillies E, Greenaway M . Unrestricted access to sugammadex: impact on neuromuscular blocking agent choice, reversal practice and associated healthcare costs. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2012; 40(2):340-3. DOI: 10.1177/0310057X1204000219. View

4.
Jones R, Caldwell J, Brull S, Soto R . Reversal of profound rocuronium-induced blockade with sugammadex: a randomized comparison with neostigmine. Anesthesiology. 2008; 109(5):816-24. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31818a3fee. View

5.
Paton F, Paulden M, Chambers D, Heirs M, Duffy S, Hunter J . Sugammadex compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate for routine reversal of neuromuscular block: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Br J Anaesth. 2010; 105(5):558-67. PMC: 2955536. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeq269. View