A Randomized Controlled Trial of Sugammadex versus Neostigmine for Reversal of Rocuronium on Gastric Emptying in Adults Undergoing Elective Colorectal Surgery.

Brandon M Togioka,Shauna K Rakshe,Shangyuan Ye,Praveen Tekkali,Vassiliki Liana Tsikitis,Sandy H Fang,Daniel O Herzig,Kim C Lu,Michael F Aziz
{"title":"A Randomized Controlled Trial of Sugammadex versus Neostigmine for Reversal of Rocuronium on Gastric Emptying in Adults Undergoing Elective Colorectal Surgery.","authors":"Brandon M Togioka,Shauna K Rakshe,Shangyuan Ye,Praveen Tekkali,Vassiliki Liana Tsikitis,Sandy H Fang,Daniel O Herzig,Kim C Lu,Michael F Aziz","doi":"10.1213/ane.0000000000007518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nGastrointestinal function is mediated by the cholinergic pathway, which is impacted by neostigmine and glycopyrrolate, but not sugammadex. We hypothesized that sugammadex is associated with earlier gastric emptying in adults undergoing colorectal surgery, compared to neostigmine-glycopyrrolate.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nPatients were enrolled in a pragmatic, single-center, patient and assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. At skin closure, subjects were randomized to sugammadex 2 mg/kg or neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg and glycopyrrolate (0.2 mg per 1 mg of neostigmine). The primary end point, gastric emptying, was assessed with the paracetamol absorption test, with greater area under the curve representing faster gastric emptying. Secondary end points included time to first bowel movement, time to achieve adequate reversal (train-of-four ratio ≥0.9), gastrointestinal complications, hospital length of stay, and postanesthesia care unit recovery time. The analysis was intention-to-treat.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nAll 60 patients randomized to sugammadex received the allocated intervention. Of 60 patients randomized to neostigmine-glycopyrrolate, 56 received neostigmine-glycopyrrolate, 2 received sugammadex, and 2 received both agents. Gastric emptying did not differ significantly between sugammadex (mean [standard deviation {SD}] area under the curve {AUC} 1118 [122]) and neostigmine (AUC 1130 [117], P = .58). Sugammadex treatment was associated with shorter time to first bowel movement (44.3 hours [33.8] vs 61.0 hours [43.0]; difference = 16.7 hours, 95% confidence interval {CI}, [2.3-31.1], P = .02) and time to adequate reversal (5.2 minutes [6.3] vs 17.5 minutes [10.1]; difference = 12.3 minutes, 95% CI, [9.2-15.4], P < .001). Neostigmine-glycopyrrolate treatment was not associated with a significant increase in gastrointestinal complications (32% vs 17%; OR = 2.3, 95% CI, [0.9-6.2], P = .09), a longer hospital length of stay (7.8 days [19.8] vs 4.8 days [4.9]; difference = 3 days, 95% CI, [-2.2 to 8.3], P = .27), or a difference in postanesthesia care unit recovery time (108 minutes [56.4] vs 115 minutes [50.3]; difference= -6.9 minutes, 95% CI, [-26.4 to 12.6], P = .48). Adverse events were similar between groups.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nSugammadex treatment was not associated with faster gastric emptying (primary end point). Regarding prespecified secondary end points, sugammadex treatment was associated with a 12.3-minute shorter time to adequate reversal in real-life practice conditions, but it did not benefit the proportion of subjects with a gastrointestinal complication, hospital length of stay, or postanesthesia care unit recovery time. Further studies are needed to confirm our finding that sugammadex is associated with a clinically significant 16.7-hour shorter time to first bowel movement, and to establish the role of sugammadex in colorectal surgery enhanced recovery protocols.","PeriodicalId":7799,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000007518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Gastrointestinal function is mediated by the cholinergic pathway, which is impacted by neostigmine and glycopyrrolate, but not sugammadex. We hypothesized that sugammadex is associated with earlier gastric emptying in adults undergoing colorectal surgery, compared to neostigmine-glycopyrrolate. METHODS Patients were enrolled in a pragmatic, single-center, patient and assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. At skin closure, subjects were randomized to sugammadex 2 mg/kg or neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg and glycopyrrolate (0.2 mg per 1 mg of neostigmine). The primary end point, gastric emptying, was assessed with the paracetamol absorption test, with greater area under the curve representing faster gastric emptying. Secondary end points included time to first bowel movement, time to achieve adequate reversal (train-of-four ratio ≥0.9), gastrointestinal complications, hospital length of stay, and postanesthesia care unit recovery time. The analysis was intention-to-treat. RESULTS All 60 patients randomized to sugammadex received the allocated intervention. Of 60 patients randomized to neostigmine-glycopyrrolate, 56 received neostigmine-glycopyrrolate, 2 received sugammadex, and 2 received both agents. Gastric emptying did not differ significantly between sugammadex (mean [standard deviation {SD}] area under the curve {AUC} 1118 [122]) and neostigmine (AUC 1130 [117], P = .58). Sugammadex treatment was associated with shorter time to first bowel movement (44.3 hours [33.8] vs 61.0 hours [43.0]; difference = 16.7 hours, 95% confidence interval {CI}, [2.3-31.1], P = .02) and time to adequate reversal (5.2 minutes [6.3] vs 17.5 minutes [10.1]; difference = 12.3 minutes, 95% CI, [9.2-15.4], P < .001). Neostigmine-glycopyrrolate treatment was not associated with a significant increase in gastrointestinal complications (32% vs 17%; OR = 2.3, 95% CI, [0.9-6.2], P = .09), a longer hospital length of stay (7.8 days [19.8] vs 4.8 days [4.9]; difference = 3 days, 95% CI, [-2.2 to 8.3], P = .27), or a difference in postanesthesia care unit recovery time (108 minutes [56.4] vs 115 minutes [50.3]; difference= -6.9 minutes, 95% CI, [-26.4 to 12.6], P = .48). Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS Sugammadex treatment was not associated with faster gastric emptying (primary end point). Regarding prespecified secondary end points, sugammadex treatment was associated with a 12.3-minute shorter time to adequate reversal in real-life practice conditions, but it did not benefit the proportion of subjects with a gastrointestinal complication, hospital length of stay, or postanesthesia care unit recovery time. Further studies are needed to confirm our finding that sugammadex is associated with a clinically significant 16.7-hour shorter time to first bowel movement, and to establish the role of sugammadex in colorectal surgery enhanced recovery protocols.
糖玛德与新斯的明在成人择期结肠手术中逆转罗库溴铵胃排空的随机对照试验。
胃肠功能是由胆碱能途径介导的,该途径受新斯的明和甘罗酸盐的影响,但不受糖madex的影响。我们假设,与新斯的明-甘罗酸盐相比,糖madex与接受结直肠手术的成人早期胃排空有关。方法患者入组一项实用、单中心、患者和评估者双盲、随机、对照试验。在皮肤闭合时,受试者被随机分配到糖玛酮2 mg/kg或新斯的明0.07 mg/kg和甘罗酸盐组(0.2 mg/ 1mg新斯的明)。主要终点胃排空用扑热息痛吸收试验评估,曲线下面积越大表示胃排空越快。次要终点包括到第一次排便的时间、达到充分逆转的时间(四组比率≥0.9)、胃肠道并发症、住院时间和麻醉后护理单位恢复时间。分析是意向治疗。结果60例随机分配至sugammadex组的患者均接受了分配的干预措施。在60例随机接受新斯的明-甘罗酸治疗的患者中,56例接受新斯的明-甘罗酸治疗,2例接受糖马德治疗,2例同时接受两种药物治疗。胃排空在糖麦酮(平均[标准差{SD}]曲线下面积{AUC} 1118[122])和新斯的明(AUC 1130 [117], P = 0.58)之间无显著差异。Sugammadex治疗与首次排便时间缩短相关(44.3小时[33.8]vs 61.0小时[43.0]);差异= 16.7小时,95%可信区间{CI}, [2.3-31.1], P = 0.02)和充分逆转所需时间(5.2分钟[6.3]vs 17.5分钟[10.1]);差异= 12.3分钟,95% CI, [9.2 ~ 15.4], P < 0.001)。新斯的明-甘罗酸酯治疗与胃肠道并发症的显著增加无关(32% vs 17%;OR = 2.3, 95% CI [0.9-6.2], P = 0.09),住院时间较长(7.8天[19.8]vs 4.8天[4.9];差异= 3天,95% CI,[-2.2至8.3],P = 0.27),或麻醉后护理单位恢复时间差异(108分钟[56.4]vs 115分钟[50.3];差异= -6.9分钟,95% CI, [-26.4 ~ 12.6], P = 0.48)。两组间不良事件相似。结论sugammadex治疗与胃排空加快无关(主要终点)。关于预先指定的次要终点,sugammadex治疗与在现实实践条件下达到充分逆转的时间缩短12.3分钟相关,但它并没有使胃肠道并发症、住院时间或麻醉后护理单位恢复时间的受试者比例受益。需要进一步的研究来证实我们的发现,即sugammadex与临床意义上的16.7小时缩短首次排便时间相关,并确定sugammadex在结直肠癌手术中增强恢复方案中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信