Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine for Recovery of Respiratory Muscle Strength Measured by Ultrasonography in the Postextubation Period: A Randomized Controlled Trial

22Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although sugammadex is well known for its use in reducing the incidence of residual neuromuscular blockade, this has not always been translated to improved clinical measures of postoperative respiratory muscle strength. Expiratory muscles play an important role in airway clearance and inspiratory muscle capacity augmentation, yet they have not been well studied. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis on whether sugammadex could enhance expiratory muscle strength recovery more completely than neostigmine in the immediate postextubation period. METHODS: Adult patients having microlaryngeal surgery under total intravenous anesthesia were randomized to receive sugammadex or neostigmine. The thickening fraction of internal oblique abdominal muscle (TFIO) and diaphragm excursion, respectively, reflecting expiratory and inspiratory muscle strength, were measured via ultrasonography at 3 time points: before induction (baseline), train-of-four ratio (TOFR) recovery to 0.9, and 30 minutes after postanesthesia care unit (PACU) arrival. The primary outcome was the change in TFIOfrom baseline to TOFR ≥0.9. The postoperative changes of diaphragm excursion from baseline, incidences of TFIOand diaphragm excursion returning to baseline levels, and the time from TOFR 0.9 to 0.95 and 1 were also measured. RESULTS: Among 58 patients, a significant difference in the change in TFIOfrom baseline to TOFR ≥0.9 between the sugammadex and neostigmine groups was observed: mean ± standard deviation, 9% ± 6% vs 16% ± 9%; difference in means: -6% (95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to -2); and adjusted P =.005 (adjusting for imbalanced variables between 2 groups). Sugammadex resulted in smaller changes in diaphragm excursion from baseline to TOFR ≥0.9 compared with neostigmine: difference in means: -0.83 cm (99.4% CI, -1.39 to -0.28 cm; Bonferroni-corrected P.999). The incidences of TFIOand diaphragm excursion returning to baseline were relatively low (<40%) in both groups despite TOFR reaching 1. The median time from TOFR of 0.9 to 0.95 and to 1 among patients receiving sugammadex was 7 and 10× faster than those receiving neostigmine (0.3 vs 2 minutes, Bonferroni-corrected P =.003; 0.5 vs 5.3 minutes, Bonferroni-corrected P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Huang, C., Wang, X., Gao, S., Luo, W., Zhao, X., Zhou, Q., … Xiao, Y. (2023). Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine for Recovery of Respiratory Muscle Strength Measured by Ultrasonography in the Postextubation Period: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 136(3), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006219

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free