Sugammadex versus neostigmine for neuromuscular blockade reversal in outpatient surgeries: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate efficacy and associated healthcare cost in an academic center.

Introduction: Neuromuscular blockade is an essential component of the general anesthesia as it allows for a better airway management and optimal surgical conditions. Despite significant reductions in extubation and OR readiness-for-discharge times have been associated with the use of sugammadex, the cost-effectiveness of this drug remains controversial. We aimed to compare the time to reach a train-of-four (TOF) response of ≥0.9 and operating room readiness for discharge in patients who received sugammadex for moderate neuromuscular blockade reversal when compared to neostigmine during outpatient surgeries under general anesthesia. Potential reduction in time for OR discharge readiness as a result of sugammadex use may compensate for the existing cost-gap between sugammadex and neostigmine. Methods: We conducted a single-center, randomized, double arm, open-label, prospective clinical trial involving adult patients undergoing outpatient surgeries under general anesthesia. Eligible subjects were randomized (1:1 ratio) into two groups to receive either sugammadex (Groups S), or neostigmine/glycopyrrolate (Group N) at the time of neuromuscular blockade reversal. The primary outcome was the time to reverse moderate rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade (TOF ratio ≥0.9) in both groups. In addition, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU)/hospital length of stay (LOS) and perioperative costs were compared among groups as secondary outcomes. Results: Thirty-seven subjects were included in our statistical analysis (Group S= 18 subjects and Group N= 19 subjects). The median time to reach a TOF ratio ≥0.9 was significantly reduced in Group S when compared to Group N (180 versus 540 seconds; p = 0.0052). PACU and hospital LOS were comparable among groups. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was the main adverse effect reported in Group S (22.2% versus 5.3% in Group N; p = 0.18), while urinary retention (10.5%) and shortness of breath (5.3%) were only experienced by some patients in Group N. Moreover, no statistical differences were found between groups regarding OR/anesthesia, PACU, and total admission costs. Discussion: Sugammadex use was associated with a significantly faster moderate neuromuscular blockade reversal. We found no evidence of increased perioperative costs associated with the use of sugammadex in patients undergoing outpatient surgeries in our academic institution. Clinical trial registration: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/] identifier number [NCT03579589].

Forced-Air Warming and Resistive Heating Devices. Updated Perspectives on Safety and Surgical Site Infections.

Introduction: Perioperative hypothermia is one of the most common phenomena seen among surgical patients, leading to numerous adverse outcomes such as intraoperative blood loss, cardiac events, coagulopathy, increased hospital stay and associated costs. Forced air warming (FAW) and resistive heating (RH) are the two most commonly used and widely studied devices to prevent perioperative hypothermia. The effect of FAW on operating room laminar flow and surgical site infection is unclear and we initiated an extensive literature search in order to get a scientific insight of this aspect. Material and Methods: The literature search was conducted using the Medline search engine, PubMed, Cochrane review, google scholar, and OSU library. Results: Out of 92 Articles considered initially for review we selected a total of 73 relevant references. Currently there is no robust evidence to support that FAW can increase SSIs. In addition, both of the two warming devices present safety problems. Conclusion: As unbiased independent reviewers, we advise clinicians to weigh the risks and benefits when using either one of these devices; no change in the current practice is necessary until further data emerges.

Tranexamic acid use during total hip arthroplasty: A single center retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent that has shown promise in reducing blood loss during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Several studies have reported side effects of high-dose TXA administration, including myocardial infarction (MI), thromboembolic events, and seizures. These possible side effects have prevented the widespread adoption of TXA in the surgical community. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 564 primary and revision THAs performed at a single academic center. Surgical patients received either no TXA or 1 g IV TXA at the beginning of surgery followed by a second bolus just before the surgical wound closure, at the surgeon's discretion. We analyzed differences in hemoglobin (Hb), hematocrit (Hct), estimated blood loss (EBL), and adverse events in patients receiving TXA versus patients not receiving TXA up to 2 days following surgery. RESULTS: Significantly higher Hb and Hct values were found across all time points among patients undergoing primary posterior or revision THA who had received TXA. In addition, transfusion rates were significantly decreased in both primary posterior THAs and revision THAs when TXA was administered. Patients who received TXA experienced significantly fewer adverse events than those who did not for all surgery types. CONCLUSION: Administration of low-dose intravenous (IV) and intra-articular (IA) TXA does not appear to increase rates of adverse events and may be effective in minimizing blood loss, as reflected by Hb and Hct values following THA.

Perioperative Outcome of Dyssomnia Patients on Chronic Methylphenidate Use.

Methylphenidate is frequently prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, narcolepsy, and other sleep disorders requiring psychostimulants. Our report is based on 2 different clinical experiences of patients with chronic methylphenidate use, undergoing general anesthesia. These cases contrast different strategies of taking versus withholding the drug treatment on the day of surgery. From the standpoint of anesthetic management and patient safety, the concerns for perioperative methylphenidate use are mainly related to cardiovascular stability and possible counteraction of sedatives and anesthetics.