Sugammadex in Neurocritical Care

Clinical Question: Should we routinely reverse paralytics in the immediate post-op period of neurosurgical patients?

  • RSI sometimes leads to prolonged residual paralysis, and this may interfere with neurologic examination
  • in one study, positive responders (improved exam after reversal) occurred after the oft-quoted 1-hour duration of paralytics
  • a single dose of intermediate-acting NMBA during intubation can confer residual paralysis evenmore than 2 hours after administration
  • this residual neuromuscular blockade is common, and often underestimated by clinicians
  • improved GCS (as well as non-improvement) after complete reversal of paralysis may influence patient care

What is SUGAMMADEX?

  • chelating medication for non-depolarizing aminosteroidal neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), and can reverse paralysis caused by rocuronium or vecuronium.
  • use may facilitate timely neurologic assessments in patients who have received NMBAs compared to delaying the exam for NMBA clearance.
  • known to be well-tolerated, but may infrequently cause adverse reactions such as severe bradycardia, hypotension and even asystole.

Impact of reversal:

  • facilitate post-operative neurologic assessment in the ICU
  • detect change in neurologic exam
  • change in neurologic prognosis
  • change in certainty of prior neurologic prognosis
  • change in decision to pursue further neuroimaging and/or other escalations of care
  • change to neurosurgical treatment plan
  • no impact?

CONS for reversing:

  • Adverse Events:
    • lower HR (55%)
    • lower MAP (82%)
    • new or worsening bradycardia or hypotension (27%)
    • no major cardiopulmonary events
  • Significant reduction in MAP – vital for post-op patients, especially those already with or at risk of significant reduction in brain perfusion
  • if patient RTOR – subsequent need for paralysis may be more challenging, requiring larger doses of rocuronium or vecuronium to overcome recent sugammadex exposure
    • alternatviely – can use cisatracurium (benzylisoguinolinium non-depolarizing NMBA)… but then again, sugammadex does not bind this drug, so direct/rapid reversal may not be achievable and will delay subsequent post-op neurologic assessments
  • may interfere with coagulation assays (aPTT/PT/INR and R-time on TEG), may prolong bleeding times, team should be made aware

**RECOMMENDATION: Given possible adverse effects of sugammadex, and the effect on the efficacy of subsequent paralytics which may be needed if patient RTOR, routine reversal should not be recommended. In patients who are paralyzed, where there may be clinical concerns for neurologic deterioration masked by paralysis, or in patients who are still deeply paralyzed, may consider reversing paralytics. (Sy)

Dosing:

  • Sugammadex 200mg IV push x1, may repeat after 15 minutes if incomplete reversal
  • Uptodate:
    • Deep block (at least 1 to 2 post-tetanic counts and prior to the second twitch following train-of-four [TOF] stimulation): 4 mg/kg as a single dose (Geldner 2012).
    • Moderate block (after appearance of the second twitch following TOF stimulation): 2 mg/kg as a single dose.
    • Readministration of rocuronium or vecuronium: waiting times for readministration of rocuronium or vecuronium vary greatly (5 minutes to 24 hours) depending on agent, dose, and renal function; if immediate neuromuscular blockade is needed, a nonsteroidal neuromuscular-blocking agent (eg, cisatracurium or atracurium) may be required.
  • Note regarding dosing – manufacturer-recommended dosing of 2mg/kg and 4mg/kg ABW pertain to reversal of moderate and deep levels of NMB respectively. At time of ICU evaluation, NMB likely to have fallen to shallower levels.
  • Doses of 0.25-2mg/Kg have been recommended for reversing lighter depths across minimal to moderate block range. 200mg dose achieves this range across diverse adult patient weights.

CHECKLIST:

[ ] sign-out from anesthesia:

  • Which paralytic was used? (does not work for succinylcholine or atracurium or cisatraciurium, only works for rocuronium and vecuronium)
  • When was paralytic given? (larger doses required if more recent)
  • How was paralytic given? (may not reverse if given by continuous infusion but can still consider)

[ ] Will reversal potentially change management of the patient? or inform prognosis?

[ ] Is there a possibility that patient will RTOR? (subsequent rocuronium / vecuronium administration will be less effective for up to 4 hours [24hwith renal impairment])

[ ] if decision to proceed – train-of-four, give sugammadex 200mg IV, repeat after 5 minutes in select circumstances (e.g. patient received high doses of continuous NMBAs) if incomplete response

[ ] document dose given, make team aware

[ ] monitor patient

  • continue train-of-four monitoring
  • anticipate change in exam
  • anticipate reduction in MAP, hypotension, bradycardia – be ready to intervene
  • rare, but watch out for anaphylaxis events
  • if paralyzed patient was undersedated – may potentially become agitated and pull at lines/tubes when reversed – ensure support is available

REFERENCE:

Hyland, S.J. et al. (2022) “Sugammadex to facilitate neurologic assessment in severely brain-injured patients: Retrospective analysis and practical guidance,” Cureus [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.30466.

Sugammadex: Drug information (no date) UpToDate. Available at: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/sugammadex-drug-information?sectionName=Adult&topicId=105866&search=sugammadex&usage_type=panel&anchor=F46021169&source=panel_search_result&selectedTitle=1~63&showDrugLabel=true&kp_tab=drug_general&display_rank=1#F46021169 (Accessed: November 23, 2022).

Valproic Acid in Neurocritical Care

Drug-drug interaction with meropenem:

  • VPA plasma concentration decreases rapidly when used with meropenem
    • VPA serum concentration decreases by 50-80% of original concentration, VPA clearance increases by 191%, half-life decreases from 15h to 4h (after a single dose of carbapenem)
    • Concomitant imipenem administration did not significantly decrease VPA serum concentration compared to meropenem or ertapenem
    • Meropenem daily dose does not influence decrease in VPA plasma level
  • Mechanism of this interaction:
    • Decreased intestinal absorption and enterohepatic circulation of VPA
    • Increased synthesis and inhibition of VPA-glucuronide hydrolysis
    • Inhibition of VPA efflux from erythrocytes
    • Increased urinary excretion of VPA-glucuronide
  • Decrease in drug concentration cannot be reversed by increasing VPA dose
  • At least 7 days required for recovery of VPA plasma concentrations after discontinuation of meropenem

Effects of VPA on Glioblastoma Tumor

  • Retrospective studies: VPA reported to improve survival of glioblastoma patients receiving chemoradiation therapy (median overall survival 42.2 vs 20.3 months p <0.01, HR 0.36 95% CI 0.18-0.74) favoring group using VPA. 
  • Another retrospective study from Massachusetts General Hospital: VPA was associated with 28% decrease in hazard of death, and 28% decrease in hazard of progression or death in glioblastoma.  This effect in improved survival is dose-dependent (every 100g increase in VPA dose was associated with a decrease in hazard of death by 7% in GBM patients).  However in grade II and II glioma patients, VPA was linked to histological progression and decrease in progression-free survival.
Kaplan–Meier Survival estimates.
a GBM patients given VPA had significant benefit in overall survival vs no VPA
b VPA treatment had no significant influence on overall survival of grade II/III patients
c GBM patients receiving VPA showed benefit in progression-free survival vs no VPA
d VPA treatment significantly shortened progression-free survival for grade II/III patients
  • Mechanism is unclear, but theories include
    • Anti-glioma growth effect through enhancing radiotherapy sensitivity
    • potential to inhibit HDAC: suppression of histone deacetylase activity leads to increased acetylation of histones, which promotes a more open chromatin configuration.  This is hypothesized to cause overexpression of tumor suppressor genes that promote growth arrest, differentiation and apoptosis. 
  • Also promotes hair growth, reducing radiotherapy side effects of hair loss
  • Limited research shows VPA has neuroprotective effect on normal cells from radiotherapy
  • Above discussion is based on retrospective studies; larger, prospective studies required; there is also other literature that shows no effect of antiepileptic drugs on survival (conflicting with above discussion)

Adverse Effect of Thrombocytopenia with VPA Use

  • VPA is one of the common causes of drug-induced thrombocytopenia, and has been associated with deficiency of coagulation factors, platelet dysfunction and hemorrhagic complications. 
  • One retrospective review noted that thrombocytopenia observed in 36.7% of patients admitted to neurological ICU who were treated with intravenous tPA.  Thrombocytopenia was associated with longer use of VPA (>3 days) higher daily dose of VPA (>1000 mg/d), concurrent use of VDA with other AEDs.
  • One retrospective study showed that VPA does not increase clinically-relevant perioperative hemorrhagic complications in patients having normal coagulation screen and platelet counts. 

REFERENCES:

Wen, Z.-P. et al. (2017) “Drug-drug interaction between valproic acid and meropenem: A retrospective analysis of electronic medical records from Neurosurgery inpatients,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 42(2), pp. 221–227. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.12501.

Chen, I.-L. et al. (2021) “Interactions between carbapenems and valproic acid among the patients in the Intensive Care Units,” Journal of Critical Care, 62, pp. 151–156. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.12.005.

Watanabe, S. et al. (2016) “Valproic acid reduces hair loss and improves survival in patients receiving temozolomide-based radiation therapy for high-grade glioma,” European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 73(3), pp. 357–363. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-016-2167-1.

Li, C. et al. (2020) “The therapeutic and neuroprotective effects of an antiepileptic drug valproic acid in glioma patients,” Neuropharmacology of Neuroprotection, pp. 369–379. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2020.09.008.

Redjal, N. et al. (2016) “Valproic acid, compared to other antiepileptic drugs, is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival in glioblastoma but worse outcome in Grade II/III gliomas treated with temozolomide,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 127(3), pp. 505–514. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-016-2054-8.

Kim, D.W. et al. (2020) “Thrombocytopenia during intravenous valproic acid therapy in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 45(5), pp. 1014–1020. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.13125.

Kurwale, N. et al. (2016) “Valproic acid as an antiepileptic drug: Is there a clinical relevance for the epilepsy surgeon?,” Epilepsy Research, 127, pp. 191–194. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2016.09.005.