• J Clin Anesth · Dec 2016

    Review Comparative Study

    Efficacy and safety of sugammadex compared to neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    • Michele Carron, Francesco Zarantonello, Paola Tellaroli, and Carlo Ori.
    • Department of Medicine, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Padova, Via C. Battisti, 267, 35121 Padova, Italy. Electronic address: michele.carron@unipd.it.
    • J Clin Anesth. 2016 Dec 1; 35: 1-12.

    Background And ObjectiveSugammadex has been introduced for reversal of rocuronium (or vecuronium)-induced neuromuscular blockade (NMB). Although its efficacy has been established, data are conflicting whether it is safer than neostigmine traditionally used for reversing NMB.DesignMeta-analysis of data about effectiveness and safety of sugammadex compared to neostigmine for reversing NMB in adults was performed using the PRISMA methodology.SettingUniversity medical hospital.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases to identify English-language randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently selected the trials; extracted data on reversal times, incomplete reversals of NMB, and adverse events (AEs); and assessed the trials' methodological quality and evidence level. Only AEs that were related to study drug by a blinded safety assessor were considered for meta-analysis.PatientsA total of 1384 patients from 13 articles were included in this meta-analysis.Main ResultsCompared to neostigmine, sugammadex was faster in reversing NMB (P<.0001) and more likely to be associated with higher train-of-four ratio values at extubation (mean difference, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.22; P<.0001) and lower risk of postoperative residual curarization after extubation (odds ratio [OR], 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.43; P=.0068). Compared to neostigmine, sugammadex was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of global AEs (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66; P<.0001), respiratory AEs (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.95; P=.0386), cardiovascular AEs (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.61; P=.0036), and postoperative weakness (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.97; P=.0409). Sugammadex and neostigmine were associated with a similar likelihood of postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.70-2.15; P=.4719), pain (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.15-7.36; P=.9559), neurologic AEs (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.52-4.17; P=.4699), general AEs (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.47-1.21; P=.2448), and changes in laboratory tests' values (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.18-1.78; P=.3368).ConclusionsResults from this meta-analysis suggest that sugammadex is superior to neostigmine, as it reverses NMB faster and more reliably, with a lower risk of AEs.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…