Display options
Cite
De Robertis E, Zito Marinosci G, Romano GM, et al. The use of sugammadex for bariatric surgery: analysis of recovery time from neuromuscular blockade and possible economic impact. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:317-22doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S109951.
De Robertis, E., Zito Marinosci, G., Romano, G. M., Piazza, O., Iannuzzi, M., Cirillo, F., De Simone, S., & Servillo, G. (2016). The use of sugammadex for bariatric surgery: analysis of recovery time from neuromuscular blockade and possible economic impact. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 8317-22. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S109951
De Robertis, Edoardo, et al. "The use of sugammadex for bariatric surgery: analysis of recovery time from neuromuscular blockade and possible economic impact." ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR vol. 8 (2016): 317-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S109951
De Robertis E, Zito Marinosci G, Romano GM, Piazza O, Iannuzzi M, Cirillo F, De Simone S, Servillo G. The use of sugammadex for bariatric surgery: analysis of recovery time from neuromuscular blockade and possible economic impact. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Jun 29;8:317-22. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S109951. eCollection 2016. PMID: 27418846; PMCID: PMC4934482.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Jun 29;8:317-22. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S109951. eCollection 2016.

The use of sugammadex for bariatric surgery: analysis of recovery time from neuromuscular blockade and possible economic impact.

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR

Edoardo De Robertis, Geremia Zito Marinosci, Giovanni Marco Romano, Ornella Piazza, Michele Iannuzzi, Fabrizio Cirillo, Stefania De Simone, Giuseppe Servillo

Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatologic Sciences, University Federico II, Naples.
  2. Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Salerno.
  3. Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development, National Research Council, Naples, Italy.

PMID: 27418846 PMCID: PMC4934482 DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S109951

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular block (NMB) monitoring and use of reversal agents accelerate the recovery time and improve the workflow in the operating room. We aimed to compare recovery times after sugammadex or neostigmine administration, and estimate the time spent in operating theater and the possible economic impact of a faster recovery, in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study that analyzed data from records of morbidly obese patients (body mass index >40 kg/m(2)) undergoing elective laparoscopic bariatric surgery in which sugammadex or neostigmine were used to reverse NMB. Patients were divided in two groups: group 1 (sugammadex group [SUG]) received rocuronium and sugammadex for reversal and group 2 (neostigmine group [NEO]) received either rocuronium or cisatracurium and neostigmine. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation).

RESULTS: Compared with NEO, SUG group showed shorter times to achieve train-of-four ratio of 0.9 (P<0.05) and an Aldrete score of 10 (P<0.05), a higher cost (€146.7 vs €3.6 [P<0.05]), plus a remarkable less duration of operating theater occupancy (P<0.05). Sugammadex cost accounted for 2.58% of the total cost per surgery, while neostigmine cost accounted for 0.06%. Total time saved in SUG group was 19.4 hours, which could be used to perform 12 extra laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies.

CONCLUSION: Reversal from NMB was significantly faster with sugammadex than with neostigmine. Although sugammadex was substantially more expensive, duration of operating theater occupancy was reduced with potentially workflow increase or personnel reduced cost.

Keywords: PORC; laparoscopic surgery; pharmacoeconomics; reversal agents

References

  1. Anesthesiology. 2008 Sep;109 (3):389-98 - PubMed
  2. Anesth Analg. 1992 Apr;74(4):515-8 - PubMed
  3. Anesthesiology. 1997 Nov;87(5):1035-43 - PubMed
  4. Obes Surg. 2013 Oct;23(10):1558-63 - PubMed
  5. Anesth Analg. 2004 Oct;99(4):1086-9, table of contents - PubMed
  6. Anesth Analg. 2004 Mar;98(3):854-7, table of contents - PubMed
  7. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2012 Apr;25(2):217-20 - PubMed
  8. Anaesthesist. 2003 Jun;52(6):522-6 - PubMed
  9. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Nov;105(5):558-67 - PubMed
  10. Anesth Analg. 2008 Jul;107(1):130-7 - PubMed
  11. Anesth Analg. 2004 Oct;99(4):1090-4, table of contents - PubMed
  12. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2014 Dec;61(10 ):565-70 - PubMed
  13. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Nov;115(5):743-51 - PubMed
  14. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1996 Jul;13(4):389-99 - PubMed
  15. Med Clin North Am. 2007 May;91(3):339-51, ix - PubMed
  16. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002 Feb;46(2):207-13 - PubMed
  17. Clin Chest Med. 2009 Sep;30(3):415-44, vii - PubMed
  18. Anesth Analg. 2010 Jul;111(1):129-40 - PubMed
  19. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014 Aug;31(8):423-9 - PubMed
  20. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Feb 18;8:43-52 - PubMed
  21. World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Nov 7;21(41):11804-14 - PubMed
  22. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1996 May;40(5):520-3 - PubMed
  23. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014 Aug;31(8):401-3 - PubMed
  24. Ann Pharmacother. 2000 Sep;34(9):1066-9 - PubMed
  25. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD007362 - PubMed
  26. PLoS Med. 2015 Dec 22;12 (12 ):e1001925 - PubMed
  27. Lancet. 2008 May 24;371(9626):1783-9 - PubMed
  28. Anesthesiology. 2000 Apr;92 (4):977-84 - PubMed
  29. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1993 Apr;265(1):194-200 - PubMed
  30. Lancet. 2009 Mar 28;373(9669):1083-96 - PubMed
  31. Br J Anaesth. 2005 Nov;95(5):622-6 - PubMed
  32. J Clin Anesth. 2005 Feb;17(1):30-5 - PubMed
  33. Br J Anaesth. 2012 Feb;108(2):236-9 - PubMed
  34. Anaesthesist. 2009 Feb;58(2):180-6 - PubMed
  35. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997 Oct;41(9):1095-1103 - PubMed
  36. Anesth Analg. 1987 Jul;66(7):594-8 - PubMed

Publication Types