Back to Journals » ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research » Volume 8

Sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular blockade: a retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in a single center

Authors Carron M, Baratto F, Zarantonello F, Ori C

Received 20 November 2015

Accepted for publication 6 January 2016

Published 18 February 2016 Volume 2016:8 Pages 43—52

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S100921

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Michael Liebman

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Professor Giorgio Lorenzo Colombo

Michele Carron, Fabio Baratto, Francesco Zarantonello, Carlo Ori

Department of Medicine, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

Objective: The aim of the study is to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of introducing a rocuronium–neostigmine–sugammadex strategy into a cisatracurium–neostigmine regimen for neuromuscular block (NMB) management.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in five operating rooms at University Hospital of Padova. A clinical outcome evaluation after sugammadex administration as first-choice reversal drug in selected patients (rocuronium–sugammadex) and as rescue therapy after neostigmine reversal (rocuronium–neostigmine–sugammadex) compared to control was performed. A cost-analysis of NMB management accompanying the introduction of a rocuronium–neostigmine–sugammadex strategy into a cisatracurium–neostigmine regimen was carried out. To such purpose, two periods were compared: 2011–2012, without sugammadex available; 2013–2014, with sugammadex available. A subsequent analysis was performed to evaluate if sugammadex replacing neostigmine as first choice reversal drug is cost-effective.
Results: The introduction of a rocuronium–neostigmine–sugammadex strategy into a cisatracurium–neostigmine regimen reduced the average cost of NMB management by 36%, from €20.8/case to €13.3/case. Patients receiving sugammadex as a first-choice reversal drug (3%) exhibited significantly better train-of-four ratios at extubation (P<0.001) and were discharged to the surgical ward (P<0.001) more rapidly than controls. The cost-saving of sugammadex as first-choice reversal drug has been estimated to be €2.9/case. Patients receiving sugammadex as rescue therapy after neostigmine reversal (3.2%) showed no difference in time to discharge to the surgical ward (P=0.44) compared to controls. No unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions with rocuronium–neostigmine–sugammadex strategy were observed. The potential economic benefit in avoiding postoperative residual curarization (PORC)-related ICU admission in the 2013–2014 period was estimated at an average value of €13,548 (€9,316–€23,845).
Conclusion: Sugammadex eliminated PORC and associated morbidities. In our center, sugammadex reduced the costs of NMB management and promoted rapid turnover of patients in operating rooms, with total cost-effectiveness that counteracts the disadvantages of its high cost.

Keywords: neuromuscular blockade; neuromuscular blocking agents; rocuronium; sugammadex; postoperative residual curarization; cost-benefit analysis.

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]