Advances in therapy · 2021
Neuromuscular Blockade and Reversal Agent Practice Variability in the US Inpatient Surgical Settings.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bash Lori D, Turzhitsky Vladimir, Black Wynona, Urman Richard D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The management of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) has evolved over time and remains a critical component of general anesthesia. However, NMB use varies by patient and procedural characteristics, clinical practices, protocols, and drug access. National utilization patterns are unknown. We describe changes in NMB and NMB reversal agent administration in surgical inpatients since the US introduction of sugammadex in December 2015.
METHODS: In a retrospective observational study of inpatients involving NMB with rocuronium or vecuronium in the Premier Healthcare Database, we estimate associations between factors related to choice of (1) active NMB reversal versus spontaneous recovery and (2) sugammadex versus neostigmine as the reversal agent.
RESULTS: Among 4.3 million adult inpatient encounters involving rocuronium or vecuronium, the most widely administered NMB agent was rocuronium alone (86%). Over time, gradual declines in both neostigmine use and spontaneous reversal were observed (64% and 36% in 2014 to 38% and 28%, respectively in the first half of 2019). Several factors were independently associated with use of active versus spontaneous NMB recovery including years since 2016, patient (age, race, comorbidities), and procedure (admission and surgery type) characteristics. Among those actively reversed, these and other factors were independently associated with choice of reversal agent administered, including size and teaching affiliation of hospital. While both impacted choices in treatment, the direction and magnitude of effect of patient comorbidities and procedure type varied in their impact on choice of mode (pharmacologic vs. spontaneous) and agent (neostigmine vs. sugammadex) of NMB reversal independent of other factors and each other. Sites which adopted sugammadex earlier were more likely to choose sugammadex over neostigmine compared with later adopters independent of other factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Among US adult inpatients administered NMBs, we observed complex relationships between patient, site, procedural characteristics, and NMB management choices as NMBA choice and active reversal options among inpatient cases changed over time.
METHODS: In a retrospective observational study of inpatients involving NMB with rocuronium or vecuronium in the Premier Healthcare Database, we estimate associations between factors related to choice of (1) active NMB reversal versus spontaneous recovery and (2) sugammadex versus neostigmine as the reversal agent.
RESULTS: Among 4.3 million adult inpatient encounters involving rocuronium or vecuronium, the most widely administered NMB agent was rocuronium alone (86%). Over time, gradual declines in both neostigmine use and spontaneous reversal were observed (64% and 36% in 2014 to 38% and 28%, respectively in the first half of 2019). Several factors were independently associated with use of active versus spontaneous NMB recovery including years since 2016, patient (age, race, comorbidities), and procedure (admission and surgery type) characteristics. Among those actively reversed, these and other factors were independently associated with choice of reversal agent administered, including size and teaching affiliation of hospital. While both impacted choices in treatment, the direction and magnitude of effect of patient comorbidities and procedure type varied in their impact on choice of mode (pharmacologic vs. spontaneous) and agent (neostigmine vs. sugammadex) of NMB reversal independent of other factors and each other. Sites which adopted sugammadex earlier were more likely to choose sugammadex over neostigmine compared with later adopters independent of other factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Among US adult inpatients administered NMBs, we observed complex relationships between patient, site, procedural characteristics, and NMB management choices as NMBA choice and active reversal options among inpatient cases changed over time.