Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 3036 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts


 
Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 111-118  

Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in morbidly obese adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis


1 Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre and St Joseph Health Care, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
2 Schulich school of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

Date of Submission05-Jun-2021
Date of Acceptance04-Jul-2021
Date of Web Publication30-Aug-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Yamini Subramani
Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre and St Joseph Health Care, London, Ontario N6A 5A5
Canada
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aer.aer_79_21

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Context: Sugammadex is known to reverse neuromuscular blockade (NMB) more rapidly and reliably than neostigmine. However, data remain limited in bariatric patients. In this review, we systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing NMB in morbidly obese (MO) patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Aims: Our primary objective was to determine the recovery time from drug administration to a train-of-four (TOF) ratio >0.9 from a moderate or deep NMB. Settings and Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis (SR and MA) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Items for SRs and MAs guidelines. Subjects and Methods: A systematic search was conducted within multiple databases for studies that compared sugammadex and neostigmine in MO patients. Statistical Analysis Used: We reported data as mean difference (MD) or odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects models. A two-sided P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Seven studies with 386 participants met the inclusion criteria. Sugammadex significantly reduced the time of reversal of moderate NMB-to-TOF ratio >0.9 compared to neostigmine, with a mean time of 2.5 min (standard deviation [SD] 1.25) versus 18.2 min (SD 17.6), respectively (MD: −14.52; 95% CI: −20.08, −8.96; P < 0.00001; I2 = 96%). The number of patients who had composite adverse events was significantly lower with sugammadex (21.2% of patients) compared to neostigmine (52.5% of patients) (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07–0.32; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Sugammadex reverses NMB more rapidly with fewer adverse events than neostigmine in MO patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Keywords: Morbid obesity, neostigmine, neuromuscular blockade, reversal, sugammadex


How to cite this article:
Subramani Y, Querney J, He S, Nagappa M, Yang H, Fayad A. Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in morbidly obese adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Essays Res 2021;15:111-8

How to cite this URL:
Subramani Y, Querney J, He S, Nagappa M, Yang H, Fayad A. Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in morbidly obese adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Essays Res [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 25];15:111-8. Available from: https://www.aeronline.org/text.asp?2021/15/1/111/325033


   Introduction Top


Morbid obesity (MO), defined as body mass index (BMI) >40 kg.m−2, occurs in 2%–5% in the Western societies. The worldwide increase in the incidence of obesity has led to an increased demand for bariatric surgery, which offers an important treatment for these patients.[1],[2] An increased risk for postoperative respiratory complications from general anesthesia and paralysis makes adequate reversal from neuromuscular blockade (NMB) crucial in MO patients. Acetylcholine inhibitors, such as neostigmine, have been conventionally used to reverse NMB. Their action on muscarinic cholinergic receptors causes undesirable side effects such as bradycardia, hypotension, bronchoconstriction, airway secretions, and increased gastrointestinal motility. They are also associated with unpredictable reversal and a risk of postoperative residual curarization (PORC).[3],[4]

The discovery of sugammadex was considered a revolution in the domain of neuromuscular reversal.[5] Sugammadex is a synthetically modified gamma-cyclodextrin that is specifically designed to encapsulate rocuronium and vecuronium and reverse their effects. Two recent systematic review and meta-analysis (SR and MA) have compared the efficacy and safety of sugammadex and neostigmine in reversing NMB in adults and have found sugammadex to allow a faster neuromuscular recovery from rocuronium-induced NMB, with fewer adverse effects.[6],[7] This can result in a reduced duration of anesthesia, higher flow of patients through the operating theater, and more efficient use of healthcare resources.[7] At present, there is insufficient evidence comparing sugammadex and neostigmine in MO patients. The aim of this SR and MA was to assess the efficacy and safety of sugammadex compared with neostigmine in MO adult patients.


   Subjects and Methods Top


This SR and MA was conducted using a predesigned protocol [Supplementary File S1], which was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021197102). This MA was reported according to the Preferred Items for SRs and MAs guidelines.[8] The ethics approval was not required as it is an SR and MA.

Study selection

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including conference abstracts, comparing sugammadex with neostigmine in MO adult surgical patients (age >18 years and BMI ≥40 kg.m−2) receiving nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents. We included any dose of sugammadex and neostigmine, at any time point of administration of the study drug. We excluded case series and case reports, observational studies, and studies that were not published in English. Recovery time was measured in minutes from administration of the study drug to a train-of-four (TOF) ratio >0.9. Adverse events were defined by study authors and assessed in the operating theater or in the postanesthetic care unit (PACU), depending on each study. Only adverse events that were possibly, probably, or definitely related to the study drug were included in the risk assessments.

Search strategy

Based on the predefined search criteria, a medical librarian systematically searched the following electronic databases: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The search strategy included the following descriptors, as per the National Center for Biotechnology Information Medical Subject Headings (NCBI MeSH): Obesity/Overweight/(obes * or “morbid* obes*”)/*”)/(overweight or over-weight or overweight or overeating or over eating or over-eating)/sugammadex/selective relaxant binding agent/SRBA/bridion/neostigmine. The search was conducted in July 2020. The complete search strategy is available in the Supplementary File S2.

Two authors (YS and MN) independently scrutinized the list of titles and abstracts to identify articles that were included in the SR and MA. Full texts of the positively screened articles were retrieved and independently assessed by two reviewers (YS and MN) for the inclusion criteria. In case of any conflict, the senior author (AF) was consulted. In addition, references listed in the included studies were manually searched for any other potentially relevant articles for inclusion. All trials were evaluated for major potential sources of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of personnel, blinding of primary outcome assessor, blinding of secondary outcome assessor, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases). We assessed each domain separately and in total and graded each domain as “high risk,” “low risk,” or “unclear risk” of bias.[9],[10] We evaluated the evidence with GRADE methodology.[11]

Data extraction

A data collection form was designed, and data were collected regarding study characteristics, patient demographics, and intraoperative and postoperative data using a standardized data collection protocol. Study characteristics, including name of the author, publication year, and study type, were identified. Preoperative data including age, sex, and BMI of patients were recorded. Intraoperative and postoperative data included type of surgery, duration, doses of rocuronium, sugammadex, neostigmine, and glycopyrrolate, degree of NMB, timing of reversal of NMB, time to recovery from NMB, and incidence of adverse effects such as pain, bradycardia, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative residual NMB. YS, MN, and AF confirmed the accuracy and completeness of all the data.

Outcome definition

Our primary outcome was recovery time from moderate NMB (from re-appearance of second twitch to TOF ratio >0.9) or deep NMB (from re-appearance of posttetanic count 1–5 to TOF ratio >0.9) with sugammadex compared to neostigmine groups. Our secondary outcomes included the risk of composite adverse events such as pain, bradycardia, and PONV; incidence of residual NMB (desaturation >4% from baseline, need for a rescue dose of sugammadex, difficulty breathing, respiratory rate >20/min, accessory muscle use or tracheal tug, reintubation, need for invasive or noninvasive ventilation); and time to discharge from the PACU with sugammadex compared to neostigmine groups.

Statistical analysis

Continuous data were reported as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Dichotomous data were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI. A two-sided P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The pooled incidence of outcome was estimated using a random-effects model to account for inter-study variation. Egger's test, Begg's test, fail-safe N-test, and inspection of the funnel plot were performed to assess publication bias.

Each analysis was assessed for statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic[12] and Chi-square tests. I2 >50% and P < 0.05 for the Chi-square test indicate significant heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used for all analyses to account for between-study heterogeneity. Heterogeneity of more than 50% was further explored with an influence analysis by excluding studies, contributing to heterogeneity in the analysis and recalculating the pooled estimates. An influence analysis was performed by excluding each study in the analysis for the significant risk factors and outcomes, and the pooled estimates were recalculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed for all outcomes, by excluding the conference abstracts from the analysis. The analysis was conducted using Review Manager Software (RevMan, V.5.3), Cochrane Canada, Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton ON, Canada.


   Results Top


Our initial search identified 592 studies that were screened by titles and abstracts to yield 40 studies for full-text eligibility review. Seven studies with 386 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included [Figure 1].[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19] All the included trials were published in English. There were four RCTs[13],[14],[15],[16] and three conference abstracts.[17],[18],[19] The participants in the included trials underwent various bariatric surgical procedures under general anesthesia, using rocuronium as a neuromuscular blocking agent and either sugammadex or neostigmine as reversal drugs. [Table 1] summarizes the SR of the included studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and all studies had some risks of bias in at least one domain [Figure 2]. We have also summarized the GRADE evidence [Table 2].
Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram

Click here to view
Figure 2: Risks of bias. Green - low risk; yellow - unclear risk; red - high risk

Click here to view
Table 1: Systematic review of the included studies

Click here to view
Table 2: Grade of evidences

Click here to view


Both the sugammadex and neostigmine groups were comparable with respect to baseline characteristics in all individual trials. There was no significant difference between the mean age or BMI of the patients in the sugammadex group compared to the neostigmine group (40.7 years [standard deviation (SD) 10.7] vs. 39.3 years [SD 11], P = 0.38; BMI 46.2 [SD 7.7] vs. 45.8 [SD 7.5], P = 0.28; respectively).

Four trials consisting of 201 patients were included in the MA of recovery time of NMB-to-TOF ratio >0.9 between the two groups.[13],[15],[17],[18] The trial by Georgiou et al.[18] compared sugammadex and neostigmine based on ideal body weight (IBW) and corrected body weight (CBW). Both datasets from this abstract were included in the analysis. Sugammadex reversed moderate NMB-to-TOF ratio >0.9 significantly faster with a mean of 2.5 min (SD 1.25) in comparison to neostigmine with a mean of 18.2 min (SD 17.6) (MD: −14.52; 95% CI: −20.08, −8.96; P < 0.001; I2 = 96%) [Figure 3]a. An influence analysis, excluding the study by Carron 2013 et al.[13] evaluating reversal of deep NMB, did not change the significance of the results, but the heterogeneity decreased to 57%. There was no difference between the two groups in the recovery time of NMB-to-TOF ratio >0.9, in a sensitivity analysis excluding conference abstracts (MD: −25.99; 95% CI: −63.82, 11.85; P = 0.18; I2 = 99%). Publication bias was investigated using a funnel plot test, Begg's test (P = 0.08), Egger's test (P = 0.06), and fail-safe N-test for each parameter, which were not significant.
Figure 3: Forest plot. CI = confidence interval; IV = Inverse Variance; MD = Mean Difference; M-H = Mantel-Haenszel; OR = Odds ratio; I2: Heterogeneity

Click here to view


Three trials were included in the MA of the incidence of composite adverse events, including pain, bradycardia, and PONV, between the two groups.[13],[14],[15] The number of patients who had composite adverse events was significantly lower in the sugammadex group, with 21.2% of patients, compared to the neostigmine group, with 52.5% of patients (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07–0.32; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%; absolute risk decrease: 31.3%) [Figure 3]b. Publication bias was investigated using a funnel plot test, Begg's test (P = 1.00), Egger's test (P = 0.845), and fail-safe N-test for each parameter, which were not significant.

Two trials were included in the MA of the incidence of residual NMB between the two groups [Figure 3]c.[13],[16] Compared to neostigmine, sugammadex use was associated with a significantly lower risk of residual NMB (OR: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.03–0.44; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%). Publication bias could not be investigated because only two trials reported on this outcome.

Three trials were included in the MA of time to discharge from the PACU between the two groups [Figure 3]d.[13],[14],[18] A trial by Georgiou et al.[18] compared sugammadex and neostigmine based on IBW and CBW. Both datasets from this abstract were included in the analysis. Sugammadex was associated with a statistically significant lower mean time of discharge from PACU compared to neostigmine, with a mean time of 89.53 min (SD 39.37) versus 112.21 min (SD 56.98), respectively (MD: −26.66; 95% CI: −43.72, −9.59; P = 0.002; I2 = 90%). A sensitivity analysis, excluding the conference abstract by Georgiou et al.,[18] which contributed to two datasets comparing sugammadex and neostigmine based on IBW and CBW, did not change the significance of the results, but the heterogeneity decreased to 0 (MD: −8.75; 95% CI: −12.96, −4.55; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Publication bias was investigated using a funnel plot test, Begg's test (P = 0.308), Egger's test (P = 0.057), and fail-safe N-test for each parameter, which were not significant.


   Discussion Top


Our SR provides evidence that sugammadex is faster and safer in reversing nondepolarizing NMB of rocuronium in MO patients, with fewer adverse effects compared to neostigmine.

We found that sugammadex use was associated with a faster time to recovery of TOF ≥0.9, fewer adverse effects, a significantly lower risk of residual NMB, and a shorter mean time of discharge from PACU compared to neostigmine. This finding agrees with three observational studies which found that sugammadex reversed moderate NMB significantly faster than neostigmine in MO patients.[20],[21],[22] This can result in a reduced duration of anesthesia, higher flow of patients through the operating theater, and more efficient use of healthcare resources. There are also potential benefits in terms of reduced incidence of PORC[22] and various muscarinic receptor-mediated side effects associated with neostigmine.[6] Although our sensitivity analysis excluding the conference abstracts did not show any difference between the sugammadex and neostigmine groups in the time to recovery of TOF ≥0.9; this finding may be inadequately powered due to paucity in the number of published full RCTs.

A complete recovery of neuromuscular function is crucial to maintain a patent airway and adequate upper airway reflexes in MO patients because of their sometimes-borderline respiratory physiology. PORC, defined as residual paresis after emergence from general anesthesia with neuromuscular blocking drugs,[15] can occur in up to 41% of the general surgical population.[23] Interestingly, PORC occurs more often in MO patients than in nonobese surgical populations (33% vs. 26%).[24] Even a small degree of PORC increases the incidence of critical respiratory events such as acute respiratory failure.[25],[26] It increases the risk of aspiration due to impaired activity and coordination of the pharyngesophageal muscles.[27] Neostigmine and sugammadex have different mechanisms of NMB reversal. Neostigmine acts by inactivating the enzyme acetyl cholinesterase in the neuromuscular junction, increasing the concentration of acetylcholine to displace rocuronium from the receptors.[28] This indirect mechanism of competitive antagonism results in unpredictable and inadequate reversal of NMB and a risk of PORC.[3],[4] PORC can also occur if reversal with neostigmine is administered too early, when the concentration of the nondepolarizing relaxant is still high in the neuromuscular junction, and the half-life of neostigmine is shorter than that of rocuronium. This improper timing of administration is common as neuromuscular function is not always routinely monitored in daily clinical practice.[15]

Sugammadex acts by a different mechanism of reversal by binding and inactivating the neuromuscular blocking agent permanently, so it can effectively reverse NMB at any stage of muscle relaxation.[6],[7],[29] We found that sugammadex was associated with a decreased risk of residual NMB versus neostigmine. Johnson et al. found that patients reversed with sugammadex had a significantly higher postoperative peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) than those reversed with neostigmine and glycopyrrolate.[22] PEFR has been shown to be a good surrogate measure of respiratory muscle strength, with low PEFR indicative of ineffective inadequate protective reflexes from the larynx and pharynx.[25],[27]

There has been an increase in the number of laparoscopic bariatric surgeries worldwide, as obesity has reached epidemic proportions globally. High doses of neuromuscular blocking agents may be required to facilitate some of these surgeries performed laparoscopically. Currently, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is a preferred method as it is found to give similar results in terms of weight loss and improvement of comorbidities, compared to the gold standard gastric by-pass.[30] Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy typically requires a deep NMB.[31] Administration of neostigmine is not recommended for reversal of a deep block, especially in the absence of any sign of neuromuscular recovery. Neostigmine cannot completely reverse profound NMB, even at high doses (70 μg.kg− 1), due to its ceiling effect, when the maximal acetylcholine concentration is unable to adequately compete with the muscle relaxant.[28],[32],[33] Reversal with sugammadex is found to help in faster and more reliable reversal compared to neostigmine, irrespective of the degree of block at reversal.[6] Our analysis identified one trial comparing neostigmine and sugammadex in reversing profound NMB and found that sugammadex allowed a safer and faster recovery from profound rocuronium-induced NMB compared to neostigmine.[13]

Cardiovascular adverse events such as bradycardia and other cardiac arrhythmias occur more frequently with the use of neostigmine compared to sugammadex.[34],[35],[36] Muscarinic receptor antagonists such as atropine or glycopyrrolate are administered with neostigmine to counteract unwanted respiratory and cardiac effects, but they, in turn, may cause tachyarrhythmias secondary to their vagolytic effects.[37] In addition, the duration of action of neostigmine, along with its adverse effects, can exceed that of muscarinic antagonist drugs. The direct mechanism of action of sugammadex helps bypass these adverse effects.[6]

Neostigmine augments gastrointestinal motility and hence may increase movement across the surgical anastomosis, potentially causing higher pain scores in these patients. Castro et al. found that the use of sugammadex was associated with less pain in the PACU than neostigmine.[14] This has huge implications in postoperative pain management due to its potential to reduce rescue opioids and associated respiratory and gastrointestinal adverse effects. Neostigmine is also found to be associated with an increased risk of PONV requiring antiemetic drugs.[14],[38] On the other hand, sugammadex is found to have no effect on the rate of PONV.[39] Our review found that sugammadex was associated with a lower incidence of composite side effects of pain, bradycardia, and PONV when compared to neostigmine.

These beneficial effects of sugammadex over neostigmine would allow a quicker transfer of patients from the PACU and economically efficient care of patients. This effect is important to recognize as the cost of sugammadex has been a major deterrent for its use as an alternative to neostigmine.[40] Several cost–benefit analyses have shown potential economic benefits associated with sugammadex in promoting operating room and PACU turnover, counteracting the drawbacks of its high cost.[21],[40],[41] Our MA also showed a faster discharge from PACU with sugammadex versus neostigmine. Moreover, sugammadex is superior to neostigmine in terms of patient safety, as it is associated with a lower incidence of PORC and associated complications.[22]

This MA has several potential limitations. Our evidence and interpretations are limited by both the quality and quantity of available evidence in the included trials. All trials had at least one domain at unclear risk of bias and the risk of over- or under-estimation of the true intervention effect, which is a limitation. Our findings are also limited by the availability of evidence from published trials; hence, we also included conference abstracts. The inclusion of unpublished data can have both advantages and limitations. The Cochrane Handbook for SR recommends inclusion of grey literature, such as conference abstracts, because an SR of data from only published reports can present a misleading picture of an intervention's efficacy. That said, a typical abstract may not report all of the information needed to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies.


   Conclusions Top


With the existing evidence base, we found that sugammadex use was associated with a faster time to recovery of TOF ≥0.9 compared to neostigmine, along with a reduced incidence of residual NMB and side effects such as pain, bradycardia, and PONV. Sugammadex was also associated with faster discharge from the PACU in our analysis. However, as the available literature is presently limited, there is a need for a large RCT evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of sugammadex in this population of MO patients.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


   Supplementary Files S1: Supplementary Protocol Top


Efficacy and Safety of Sugammadex versus Neostigmine in Reversing Neuromuscular Blockade in Morbidly Obese Adult Patients


   Background Top


Neuromuscular blockade is required to facilitate bariatric surgical procedures. If it is not completely reversed after surgery, it might lead to remaining muscle weakness, breathing problems, lung infection, and delayed recovery. Neostigmine and other medications from the same drug family are currently used to reverse muscle paralysis after surgery. These medications, however, are not effective in all situations and may cause complications as well. Complications include changes in the heart and lung function and nausea and vomiting after surgery. Sugammadex is a new medication that is used after surgery to reverse the effects of muscle relaxants quickly and effectively. This review compares neostigmine and sugammadex for safety and efficacy in bariatric surgical patients.


   Objective Top


In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to investigate the efficacy of sugammadex versus neostigmine in adequately reversing neuromuscular blockade in morbidly obese patients without significant adverse effects.


   Inclusion Criteria Top


We include all randomized controlled studies, including conference abstracts, comparing sugammadex with neostigmine in morbidly obese adult surgical patients (age >18 years and body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m2) receiving nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents. We include any dose of sugammadex and neostigmine and any time-point of administration of study drug.


   Exclusion Criteria Top


We exclude case series and case reports, observational studies, and studies that were not published in English language.


   Search Methods Top


We will search the following electronic databases:

  • MedLine (via PubMed)
  • EMBASE
  • Web of Science
  • Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
  • The search will be restricted to English language. In these databases, we search according to the thesaurus of the NCBI MeSH browser the following terms and combinations of keywords in full text:


The following keywords will be employed:

The search included the combination of the following MESH key words: Obesity/2 Overweight/(obes* or “morbid* obes*”)/(overweight or over-weight or over weight or overeating or over eating or over-eating)/sugammadex/selective relaxant binding agent/SRBA/bridion/neostigmine.

In addition, bibliographies of identified publications and published reviews will be hand-searched for potentially relevant articles. Authors will be contacted if data, methods, and/or parameter definitions provided from the respective studies are unclear. All references cited in the identified reviews will be manually searched for potentially relevant studies.


   Data Collection Top


Two reviewers (YS, MN) will independently scrutinize the list of titles, and if available the abstracts, to determine potential usefulness of the article. Final selection will be based on the full text of potentially relevant articles by the two reviewers independently. In cases of disagreement senior author (AF) would help in achieving a consensus. Study quality will be measured using the using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of personnel, blinding of primary outcome assessor, blinding of secondary outcome assessor, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias). We assessed each domain separately and in total and graded each domain as “high risk,” “low risk,” or “unclear risk” of bias. The following study characteristics will be extracted: author, publication year, study type; preoperative Data including: age, sex, and BMI; intraoperative data including: type of surgery, duration, doses of rocuronium, sugammadex, neostigmine, and glycopyrrolate, degree of neuromuscular blockade (NMB), timing of reversal of NMB, time to recovery from NMB, and incidence of adverse effects such as pain, bradycardia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative residual NMB. The above mentioned will be collected using a standardized data collection pro forma. Authors YS, MN, and AF will confirm the accuracy and completeness of all the data.


   Outcome Measures Top


Our primary outcome is recovery time from moderate neuromuscular blockade (from re-appearance of second twitch to train-of-four ratio >0.9) or deep neuromuscular blockade (from re-appearance of posttetanic count 1–5 to train-of-four ratio >0.9) with sugammadex versus neostigmine groups. Our secondary outcomes are the risk of composite adverse events such as pain, bradycardia, and postoperative nausea and vomiting and residual NMB (desaturation >4% from baseline, need for a rescue dose of sugammadex, difficulty breathing, respiratory rate >20/min, accessory muscle use or tracheal tug; reintubation; need for invasive or noninvasive ventilation) with sugammadex versus neostigmine groups.


   Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Top


Dichotomous comparisons

  • Continuous data will be reported as mean difference. Dichotomous data will be reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A two-sided P < 0.05 will be considered significant. Random-effects models to estimate the pooled ORs for risk of perioperative complications in both the groups will be constructed across all studies. The value of the I2 statistic will be used to select the appropriate pooling method: Fixed-effects models were used for I2 < 50% and random-effects models for I2 ≥ 50%.



   Assessment of Heterogeneity Top


  • Impact of heterogeneity will be assessed by calculating the I2 according to Higgins et al.[1] CIs around the I2 were also provided.



   Influence Analysis Top


  • Robustness of the pooled estimates will be checked by influence analyses. Each of the studies will be individually omitted from the data set, followed in each case by recalculation of the pooled estimate of the remaining studies.



   Forest Plots Top


Forest plots will be re-plotted with summary points.


   Evaluation of Bias and Confounding Top


Publication bias

  • Publication bias will be assessed by inspection of the funnel plot and formal testing for funnel plot asymmetry. Funnel plot in inverse-V shape will be presented.



   Discussion and Evaluating Top


  • The results will be critically and integratively discussed.



   Reference Top


  1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.



   Supplementary File S2: Search Strategy Top


Database: EBM Reviews - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials <June 2020>, EBM Reviews - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews <2005 to July 10, 2020>


   Search Strategy Top


  1. Exp Obesity/or exp Obesity Management/(13610)
  2. Overweight/(4860)
  3. (obes* or “morbid* obes*”).mp. (45,039)
  4. (Overweight or over-weight or over weight or overeating or over eating or over-eating).mp. (17796)
  5. Or/1–4 (48259)
  6. Sugammadex.mp. (602)
  7. “Selective relaxant binding agent”.mp. (36)
  8. “SRBA”.mp. (3)
  9. “org 25969”.mp. (37)
  10. “bridion”.mp. (57)
  11. or/6-10 (612)
  12. neostigmine.mp. (1471)
  13. or/11-12 (1791)
  14. 5 and 13 (82)


Database: Embase Classic + Embase < 1947 to 2020 July 14>


   Search Strategy Top


  1. (obes* or “morbid* obes*” or overweight or over-weight or over weight or overeating or over eating or over-eating).mp. (601,758)
  2. sugammadex.mp. (2220)
  3. “selective relaxant binding agent”.mp. (76)
  4. “SRBA”.mp. (47)
  5. “org 25969”.mp. (66)
  6. “bridion”.mp. (156)
  7. or/2-6 (2267)
  8. neostigmine.mp. (16437)
  9. or/7-8 (18079)
  10. 1 and 9 (340)


***************************

Database: Ovid MEDLINE (R) ALL < 1946 to July 14, 2020>


   Search Strategy Top


  1. Exp Obesity/or exp Obesity Management/(221,345)
  2. Overweight/(24737)
  3. (Obes* or “morbid* obes*”).mp. (356559)
  4. (Overweight or over-weight or over weight or overeating or over eating or over-eating).mp. (76925)
  5. or/1–4 (381916)
  6. Sugammadex.mp. (1156)
  7. “Selective relaxant binding agent”.mp. (54)
  8. “SRBA”.mp. (43)
  9. “org 25969”.mp. (20)
  10. “Bridion”.mp. (18)
  11. or/6-10 (1196)
  12. Neostigmine.mp. (6177)
  13. or/11-12 (7101)
  14. 5 and 13 (80)


Web of Science Core Collection (All Years 1900-2020) - Search Strategy and Result Sets - Run on 07-15-20.docx



 
   References Top

1.
Casati A, Putzu M. Anesthesia in the obese patient: Pharmacokinetic considerations. J Clin Anesth 2005;17:134-45.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Buchwald H, Oien DM. Metabolic/bariatric surgery Worldwide 2008. Obes Surg 2009;19:1605-11.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Caldwell JE. Clinical limitations of acetylcholinesterase antagonists. J Crit Care 2009;24:21-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Keating GM. Sugammadex: A review of neuromuscular blockade reversal. Drugs 2016;76:1041-52.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Sacan O, White PF, Tufanogullari B, Klein K. Sugammadex reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade: A comparison with neostigmine-glycopyrrolate and edrophonium-atropine. Anesth Analg 2007;104:569-74.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Hristovska AM, Duch P, Allingstrup M, Afshari A. The comparative efficacy and safety of sugammadex and neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults. A Cochrane systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Anaesthesia 2018;73:631-41.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Carron M, Zarantonello F, Lazzarotto N, Tellaroli P, Ori C. Role of sugammadex in accelerating postoperative discharge: A meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth 2017;39:38-44.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Hoboken, New Jersey, United States: Wiley; 2011.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Smith AF, Carlisle J. Reviews, systematic reviews and Anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2015;70:644-50.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Neumann I, Pantoja T, Peñaloza B, Cifuentes L, Rada G. The GRADE system: A change in the way of assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Rev Med Chil 2014;142:630-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Carron M, Veronese S, Foletto M, Ori C. Sugammadex allows fast-track bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 2013;23:1558-63.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Castro DS Jr., Leão P, Borges S, Gomes L, Pacheco M, Figueiredo P. Sugammadex reduces postoperative pain after laparoscopic bariatric surgery: A randomized trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2014;24:420-3.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Gaszynski T, Szewczyk T, Gaszynski W. Randomized comparison of sugammadex and neostigmine for reversal of rocuronium-induced muscle relaxation in morbidly obese undergoing general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2012;108:236-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Evron S, Abelansky Y, Ezri T, Izakson A. Respiratory events with sugammadex vs. neostigmine following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: A prospective pilot study assessing neuromuscular reversal strategies. Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care 2017;24:111-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Foletto M, Carron M, Zarantonello FP. Respiratory function after sugammadex and neostigmine administration for reversal of moderate rocuronium-induced neuromuscolar blockade in morbidly obese patients. In: Obesity surgery. Vol. 24. Hoboken, New Jersey, United States: Wiley; 2014. p. 1139.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Georgiou P, Zotou A, Siampalioti A, Tagari P, Tsiotsi P, Filos KS. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of sugammadex versus neostigmine reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block in super obese patients undergoing open laparotomy for bariatric surgery. A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2013;30:141.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Raziel A, Messinger G, Sakran N, Szold A, Goitein D. Comparison of two neuromuscular anesthetics reversal in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery – A prospective study. Surg Endosc Other Intervent Tech 2014;28:S31.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Mete A, Karaduman S, Sungurtekin H, Kılıç O. Comparison of sugammadex vs. neostigmine use in recovery of muscle relaxation related to vecuronium in obesity surgery. J Surg Med 2019;3:307-10.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
De Robertis E, Zito Marinosci G, Romano GM, Piazza O, Iannuzzi M, Cirillo F, et al. The use of sugammadex for bariatric surgery: Analysis of recovery time from neuromuscular blockade and possible economic impact. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2016;8:317-22.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Johnson M, Khan OA, McGlone ER, Roman AA, Qureshi JS, Kayal A. Sugammadex is associated with better respiratory recovery than neostigmine following reversal of anaesthesia-associated neuromuscular blockade in the morbidly obese patients following elective laparoscopic surgery. Laparosc Endosc Robot Surg 2018;1:33-6.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Murphy GS, Brull SJ. Residual neuromuscular block: Lessons unlearned. Part I: Definitions, incidence, and adverse physiologic effects of residual neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg 2010;111:120-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Gaszynski T, Jakubiak J, Szlachcinski L, Gaszynski W. Administration of neostigmine does not prevent from post-operative residual curarisation in morbidly obese patients: 9AP5-7. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2008;25:137.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Marymont JH, Greenberg SB, Avram MJ, Vender JS. Residual neuromuscular blockade and critical respiratory events in the postanesthesia care unit. Anesth Analg 2008;107:130-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Berg H, Roed J, Viby-Mogensen J, Mortensen CR, Engbaek J, Skovgaard LT, et al. Residual neuromuscular block is a risk factor for postoperative pulmonary complications. A prospective, randomised, and blinded study of postoperative pulmonary complications after atracurium, vecuronium and pancuronium. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997;41:1095-103.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Sundman E, Witt H, Olsson R, Ekberg O, Kuylenstierna R, Eriksson LI. The incidence and mechanisms of pharyngeal and upper esophageal dysfunction in partially paralyzed humans: Pharyngeal videoradiography and simultaneous manometry after atracurium. Anesthesiology 2000;92:977-84.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Bartkowski RR. Incomplete reversal of pancuronium neuromuscular blockade by neostigmine, pyridostigmine, and edrophonium. Anesth Analg 1987;66:594-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Gijsenbergh F, Ramael S, Houwing N, van Iersel T. First human exposure of Org 25969, a novel agent to reverse the action of rocuronium bromide. Anesthesiology 2005;103:695-703.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
van Rutte PW, Luyer MD, de Hingh IH, Nienhuijs SW. To sleeve or NOT to sleeve in bariatric surgery? ISRN Surg 2012;2012:674042.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Badaoui R, Cabaret A, Alami Y, Zogheib E, Popov I, Lorne E, et al. Reversal of neuromuscular blockade by sugammadex in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: In support of dose reduction. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2016;35:25-9.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Kopman AF. Neostigmine versus sugammadex: Which, when, and how much? Anesthesiology 2010;113:1010-1.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Suzuki T, Masaki G, Ogawa S. Neostigmine-induced reversal of vecuronium in normal weight, overweight and obese female patients. Br J Anaesth 2006;97:160-3.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Jones RK, Caldwell JE, Brull SJ, Soto RG. Reversal of profound rocuronium-induced blockade with sugammadex: A randomized comparison with neostigmine. Anesthesiology 2008;109:816-24.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Lemmens HJ, El-Orbany MI, Berry J, Morte JB Jr, Martin G. Reversal of profound vecuronium-induced neuromuscular block under sevoflurane anesthesia: sugammadex versus neostigmine. BMC Anesthesiol 2010;10:15.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Wu X, Oerding H, Liu J, Vanacker B, Yao S, Dahl V, et al. Rocuronium blockade reversal with sugammadex vs. neostigmine: Randomized study in Chinese and Caucasian subjects. BMC Anesthesiol 2014;14:53.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Bevan DR, Donati F, Kopman AF. Reversal of meeting abstracts. Anesthesiology 1992;77:785-805.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Løvstad RZ, Thagaard KS, Berner NS, Raeder JC. Neostigmine 50 μg kg−1 with glycopyrrolate increases postoperative nausea in women after laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001;45:495-500.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Abad-Gurumeta A, Ripollés-Melchor J, Casans-Francés R, Espinosa A, Martínez-Hurtado E, Fernández-Pérez C, et al. A systematic review of sugammadex vs neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. Anaesthesia 2015;70:1441-52.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Ledowski T, Hillyard S, Kozman A, Johnston F, Gillies E, Greenaway M, et al. Unrestricted access to sugammadex: Impact on neuromuscular blocking agent choice, reversal practice and associated healthcare costs. Anaesth Intensive Care 2012;40:340-3.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Paton F, Paulden M, Chambers D, Heirs M, Duffy S, Hunter JM, et al. Sugammadex compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate for routine reversal of neuromuscular block: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Br J Anaesth 2010;105:558-67.  Back to cited text no. 41
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Subjects and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    Supplementary Fi...
   Background
   Objective
   Inclusion Criteria
   Exclusion Criteria
   Search Methods
   Data Collection
   Outcome Measures
    Meta-Analysis an...
    Assessment of He...
   Influence Analysis
   Forest Plots
    Evaluation of Bi...
    Discussion and E...
   Reference
   Search Strategy
   Search Strategy
   Search Strategy
    Supplementary Fi...
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed202    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded31    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal