No abstract

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex and neostigmine given to reverse residual neuromuscular blockade can cause side effects including bradycardia, anaphylaxis, bronchospasm, and even cardiac arrest. We tested the hypothesis that sugammadex is noninferior to neostigmine on a composite of clinically meaningful side effects, or vice versa. METHODS: We analyzed medical records of patients who had general, cardiothoracic, or pediatric surgery and were given neostigmine or sugammadex from June 2016 to December 2019. Our primary outcome was a collapsed composite of bradycardia, anaphylaxis, bronchospasm, and cardiac arrest occurring between administration of the reversal agent and departure from the operation room. We a priori restricted our analysis to side effects requiring pharmacologic treatment that were therefore presumably clinically meaningful. Sugammadex would be considered noninferior to neostigmine (or vice versa) if the odds ratio for composite of side effects did not exceed 1.2. RESULTS: Among 89,753 surgeries in 70,690 patients, 16,480 (18%) were given sugammadex and 73,273 (82%) were given neostigmine. The incidence of composite outcome was 3.4% in patients given sugammadex and 3.0% in patients given neostigmine. The most common individual side effect was bradycardia (2.4% in the sugammadex group versus 2.2% neostigmine). Noninferiority was not found, with an estimated odds ratio of 1.21 (sugammadex versus neostigmine; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.34; noninferiority P = .57), and neostigmine was superior to sugammadex with an estimated odds ratio of 0.83 (0.74–0.92), 1-side superiority P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: The composite incidence was less with neostigmine than with sugammadex, but only by 0.4% (a negligible clinical effect). Since 250 patients would need to be given neostigmine rather than sugammadex to avoid 1 episode of a minor complication such as bradycardia or bronchospasm, we conclude that sugammadex and neostigmine are comparably safe.

Prediabetes and diabetes are important disease processes which have several perioperative implications. About one third of the United States population is considered to have prediabetes. The prevalence in surgical patients is even higher. This is due to the associated micro and macrovascular complications of diabetes that result in the need for subsequent surgical procedures. A careful preoperative evaluation of diabetic patients and patients at risk for prediabetes is essential to reduce perioperative mortality and morbidity. This preoperative evaluation involves an optimization of preoperative comorbidities. It also includes optimization of antidiabetic medication regimens, as the avoidance of unintentional hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes during the perioperative period is crucial. The focus of the perioperative management is to ensure euglycemia and thus improve postoperative outcomes. Therefore, prolonged preoperative fasting should be avoided and close monitoring of blood glucose should be initiated and continued throughout surgery. This can be accomplished with either analysis in blood gas samples, venous phlebotomy or point-of-care testing. Although capillary and arterial whole blood glucose do not meet standard guidelines for glucose testing, they can still be used to guide insulin dosing in the operating room. Intraoperative glycemic control goals may vary slightly in different protocols but overall the guidelines suggest a glucose range in the operating room should be between 140 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL. When hyperglycemia is detected in the operating room, blood glucose management may be initiated with subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin, with intravenous infusion or boluses of regular insulin. Fluid and electrolyte management are other perioperative challenges. Notably diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar nonketotic state are the two most serious acute metabolic complications of diabetes that must be recognized early and treated.

No abstract

No abstract