Stoelting's Pharmacology & Physiology in Anesthetic Practice, 5ed.

12. Neuromuscular Blocking Drugs and Reversal Agents

The first successful administration of a neuromuscular blocker (curare) to produce surgical relaxation in an anesthetized patient occurred in 1912, when Arthur Läwen,¹ a German surgeon from Leipzig, used a partially purified preparation of the substance. Läwen’s findings were subsequently ignored for nearly three decades until January 23, 1942, when Enid Johnson, following Harold Griffith’s instructions, administered 5 mL of curare intravenously to a 20-year-old man who had been anesthetized with cyclopropane via a facemask for an appendectomy.² The use of neuromuscular blockers in clinical anesthesia has increased exponentially since that time.

Neuromuscular blockers that are currently available for clinical use are classified as (a) nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers or (b) depolarizing neuromuscular blockers. Nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers compete with acetylcholine for the active binding sites at the postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and are also called competitive antagonists. Depolarizing neuromuscular blockers act as agonists (i.e., they are similar in structure to acetylcholine) at postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and cause prolonged membrane depolarization resulting in neuromuscular blockade. Succinylcholine is the only depolarizing neuromuscular blocker currently in clinical use.

Principles of Action of Neuromuscular Blockers at the Neuromuscular Junction

In the resting state, the ion channel of the acetylcholine receptor is closed (see Chapter 11). Simultaneous binding of two acetylcholine molecules to the α subunits³ initiates conformational changes that open the channel.^4–6 On the other hand, binding of a single molecule of a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocker (a competitive antagonist) to one α subunit is sufficient to produce neuromuscular block.⁷

Depolarizing neuromuscular blockers, such as succinylcholine, produce prolonged depolarization of the endplate region that results in desensitization of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors; inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels at the neuromuscular junction; and increases in potassium permeability in the surrounding membrane. The end result is failure of action potential generation due to membrane hyperpolarization, and block ensues.

With respect to neuromuscular pharmacology, two enzymes of importance are known to hydrolyze choline esters: acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase. Acetylcholinesterase (similar to red cell cholinesterase and also known as “true” cholinesterase) is present at the neuromuscular junction⁸ and is responsible for the rapid hydrolysis of released acetylcholine to acetic acid and choline.⁹Butyrylcholinesterase (also known as plasma cholinesterase or pseudocholinesterase) is synthesized in the liver. Butyrylcholinesterase catalyzes the hydrolysis of succinylcholine, which occurs mainly in the plasma.

Structure of Neuromuscular Blocking Drugs

All neuromuscular blockers, being quaternary ammonium compounds, are structurally related to acetylcholine. The majority of neuromuscular blocking drugs currently available for clinical use are synthetic alkaloids. An exception is tubocurarine, which is extracted from plants. Although tubocurarine can be synthesized, it is less expensive to isolate this drug from the Amazonian vine Chondodendron tomentosum.

Characteristics of Nondepolarizing and Depolarizing Neuromuscular Block

During complete neuromuscular block, no response can be elicited by any pattern of nerve stimulation—single twitch, train-of-four (TOF) stimulation (four stimuli delivered every 0.5 second), or a tetanic stimulus. However, during partial neuromuscular block, the pattern of muscle response varies with the type of neuromuscular blocker administered and the degree of block.

Nondepolarizing Neuromuscular Block

Nondepolarizing neuromuscular block is characterized by (a) decrease in twitch tension, (b) fade during repetitive stimulation (TOF or tetanic), and (c) posttetanic potentiation (Fig. 12-1).

It is generally believed that twitch depression results from block of postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, whereas tetanic or TOF fade results from block of presynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.^10,11 Blockade of the presynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors by neuromuscular blockers prevents acetylcholine from being made available (released from presynaptic nerve terminal) to sustain muscle contraction during high-frequency (tetanic or TOF) stimulation. Because the released acetylcholine does not match the demand, muscle fade is observed in response to stimulation.¹²

However, there is also strong contrary evidence indicating that fade could be simply a postjunctional (postsynaptic) phenomenon. This latter argument is supported by the fact that the snake toxin, α-bungarotoxin—which binds irreversibly to muscle (postjunctional) nicotinic acetylcholine receptors but does not bind to neuronal (prejunctional) nicotinic acetylcholine receptors—does produce fade.^13,14

Depolarizing Neuromuscular Block

In the case of administration of a depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agent, such as succinylcholine, the muscle response that has been “classically” described is quite different. Depolarizing block (also called phase I block) is often preceded by muscle fasciculation. During partial neuromuscular block, depolarizing block is characterized by (a) decrease in twitch tension, (b) no fade during repetitive stimulation (tetanic or TOF), and (c) no posttetanic potentiation (Fig. 12-2).

Pharmacology of Succinylcholine

Structure–Activity Relationships for Succinylcholine

Succinylcholine is a long, thin, flexible molecule composed of two molecules of acetylcholine linked through the acetate methyl groups (Fig. 12-3). Like acetylcholine, succinylcholine stimulates cholinergic receptors at the neuromuscular junction and at nicotinic (ganglionic) and muscarinic autonomic sites, opening the ionic channel in the acetylcholine receptor.

Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacogenomics of Succinylcholine

Succinylcholine has an elimination half-life of 47 seconds (95% confidence interval of 24 to 70 seconds).¹⁵ The elimination of succinylcholine appears to follow first-order kinetics.^15,16 The t_½ k_e0 and Hill coefficient (after fitting two doses of 1 mg/kg succinylcholine) were 244 seconds (standard deviation 157) and 7.9 (standard deviation 3.3), respectively.¹⁵ The dose of succinylcholine causing on average 95% suppression of twitch height (the ED₉₅) is approximately 0.3 mg/kg.^17,18

The usual dose of succinylcholine required for tracheal intubation in adults is 1.0 mg/kg. Administration of 1 mg/kg succinylcholine results in complete suppression of response to neuromuscular stimulation in approximately 60 seconds. In patients with genotypically normal butyryl­cholinesterase activity, time to recovery to 90% muscle strength following administration of 1 mg/kg succinylcholine ranges from 9 to 13 minutes.^19,20 In one study, administration of 0.6 mg/kg of succinylcholine resulted in acceptable intubating conditions at 60 seconds in 95% of patients.²¹ The reported proportions of patients with acceptable intubating conditions after administration of 1.0 mg/kg succinylcholine varies from 91.8% to 97%.^22–24 It also appears that there are no advantages to using succinylcholine doses larger than 1.5 mg/kg in a rapid sequence induction of anesthesia. Paradoxically, succinylcholine doses as large as 2.0 mg/kg guaranteed excellent intubating conditions at 60 seconds in only 86.7% of patients.²⁵ It should be noted that the adequacy of intubating conditions is related not only to the use of a neuromuscular blocker but also to the depth of anesthesia, airway anatomy, and the experience of the laryngoscopist.

The short duration of action of succinylcholine is due to its rapid hydrolysis by butyrylcholinesterase (plasma cholinesterase) to succinylmonocholine and choline, such that only 10% of the administered drug reaches the neuromuscular junction.²⁶ Succinylmonocholine is a much weaker neuromuscular blocking agent than succinylcholine ²⁷ and is metabolized much more slowly to succinic acid and choline.

There is little or no butyrylcholinesterase at the neuromuscular junction. Butyrylcholinesterase influences the onset and duration of action of succinylcholine by controlling the rate at which the drug is hydrolyzed in the plasma before it reaches, and after it leaves, the neuromuscular junction. Recovery from succinylcholine-induced blockade occurs as succinylcholine diffuses away from the neuromuscular junction, down a concentration gradient as the plasma concentration decreases.

Factors Affecting Butyrylcholinesterase Activity

Butyrylcholinesterase is synthesized by the liver and found in the plasma.^28,29 The elimination half-time of plasma cholinesterase is 8 to 16 hours, and levels of <75% are necessary for prolongation of succinylcholine effect. Butyrylcholinesterase is responsible for metabolism of succinylcholine, mivacurium, procaine, chloroprocaine, tetracaine, cocaine, and heroin. Neuromuscular block induced by succinylcholine or mivacurium is prolonged when there is a significant reduction in the concentration or activity of butyrylcholinesterase. The activity of the enzyme refers to the number of substrate molecules (µmol) hydrolyzed per unit of time, often expressed in International Units.

Factors that have been described as lowering butyrylcholinesterase activity are advanced liver disease,³⁰ advanced age,³¹ malnutrition, pregnancy, burns, oral contraceptives, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, echothiophate, cytotoxic drugs, neoplastic disease, anticholinesterase drugs,^32,33 metoclopramide,³⁴ and bambuterol.^35,36 The β-blocker esmolol inhibits butyrylcholinesterase but causes only a minor prolongation of succinylcholine block.^37,38

Neostigmine (and to a lesser degree edrophonium) causes a profound decrease in butyrylcholinesterase activity.³⁹ Even 30 minutes after administration of neostigmine, the butyrylcholinesterase activity remains about 50% of control values. Potent anticholinesterase drugs used in insecticides and occasionally in the treatment of glaucoma and myasthenia gravis, as well as chemotherapeutic drugs (nitrogen mustard and cyclophosphamide), may decrease butyrylcholinesterase activity so that prolonged neuromuscular blockade follows administration of succinylcholine. High estrogen levels, as observed in parturients at term, are associated with up to 40% decreases in butyrylcholinesterase activity. Paradoxically, the duration of action of succinylcholine-induced skeletal muscle paralysis is not prolonged, presumably reflecting an increased volume of distribution of the drug at term.

Genetic Variants of Butyrylcholinesterase

Neuromuscular block induced by succinylcholine or mivacurium can be significantly prolonged if the patient has an abnormal genetic variant of butyrylcholinesterase. Analysis of butyrylcholinesterase involves the determination of both enzyme activity and biochemical phenotypes. Phenotype is determined by the use of specific enzyme inhibitors (such as dibucaine or fluoride) that produce phenotype-specific patterns of dibucaine or fluoride numbers. Molecular genetic analyses can determine the true genotypes. For reviews, see Pantuck ⁴⁰ and Goodall.⁴¹

It is important to recognize that the dibucaine number reflects quality of cholinesterase enzyme (ability to hydrolyze succinylcholine) and not the quantity of the enzyme that is circulating in the plasma. In case of the usual butyrylcholinesterase genotype (E₁^uE₁^u), the dibucaine number is 70 or higher, whereas in individuals homozygous for the atypical gene (E₁^aE₁^a) (frequency in general population of 1 in 3,500), the dibucaine number is less than 30. In individuals with the heterozygous atypical variant (E₁^uE₁^a) (frequency in general population of 1 in 480), the dibucaine number is in the range of 40 to 60.^42,43In individuals with the homozygous atypical genotype (E₁^aE₁^a), the neuromuscular block induced by succinylcholine or mivacurium is prolonged to 4 to 8 hours, and in individuals with the heterozygous atypical genotype (E₁^uE₁^a), the period of neuromuscular block induced by succinylcholine or mivacurium is about 1.5 to 2 times that seen in individuals with the usual genotype (E₁^uE₁^u).⁴⁴ The longest period of apnea after the administration of succinylcholine was found in patients homozygous for the silent gene (E₁^sE₁^s).⁴⁴In those patients, TOF stimulation will help in detecting the development of phase II block, a block that may appear after prolonged or repeated administration of succinylcholine and has characteristics similar to nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers. The decision whether to attempt antagonism of a phase II block has always been controversial and the use edrophonium or neostigmine do not consistently result in adequate antagonism of neuromuscular blockade.⁴⁵ The alternative is to keep the patient adequately sedated and maintain artificial ventilation until the TOF ratio has recovered to 0.9 or more.

Fluoride-resistant butyrylcholinesterase variants have also been described. In case of the usual butyrylcholinesterase genotype (E₁^uE₁^u), the fluoride number is 60, whereas in individuals with the homozygous atypical genotype (E₁^fE₁^f), the fluoride number is 36.⁴⁴ Individuals with homozygous fluoride-resistant genotype exhibit mild to moderate prolongation of succinylcholine-induced paralysis. The heterozygous fluoride-resistant genotype usually produces clinically insignificant prolongation of succinylcholine block, unless accompanied by a second abnormal allele or by a coexisting acquired cause of butyrylcholinesterase deficiency.

Although the dibucaine or fluoride number indicates the genetic makeup of an individual with respect to butyrylcholinesterase, it does not measure the concentration of the enzyme in the plasma nor does it indicate the efficiency of the enzyme in hydrolyzing succinylcholine or mivacurium. Both of these latter factors are determined by measuring butyrylcholinesterase activity—which may be influenced by genotype.

Some rare butyrylcholinesterase variants are associated with increased enzyme activity (two to three times normal).⁴⁶ Resistance to succinylcholine⁴⁷ and mivacurium⁴⁸ as a result of increased butyrylcholinesterase activity has been described.

Side Effects of Succinylcholine

Cardiovascular Effects

Sinus bradycardia, junctional rhythm, and even sinus arrest may follow administration of succinylcholine. These cardiac effects reflect the actions of succinylcholine at cardiac muscarinic cholinergic receptors where the drug mimics the physiologic effects of acetylcholine. Cardiac dysrhythmias are most likely to occur when a second dose of succinylcholine is administered approximately 5 minutes after the first dose. Sinus bradycardia (resulting from stimulation of cardiac muscarinic receptors) is frequently seen in children⁴⁹ and in adults after a repeated dose of succinylcholine.⁵⁰ Atropine is effective in treating or preventing bradycardia.

In contrast to actions at cardiac muscarinic cholinergic receptors, the effects of succinylcholine at autonomic nervous system ganglia may produce ganglionic stimulation and associated increases in heart rate and systemic blood pressure. The ganglionic stimulation reflects an effect of succinylcholine on autonomic ganglia that resembles the physiologic effect of acetylcholine at these sites. Ventricular dysrhythmias after succinylcholine administration have been attributed to autonomic stimuli associated with laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation.⁵¹

Hyperkalemia

The administration of succinylcholine is associated with approximately 0.5 mEq/dL increase in the plasma potassium concentration in healthy individuals, which is well tolerated and generally does not cause dysrhythmias. Patients with renal failure are no more susceptible to an exaggerated hyperkalemic response to succinylcholine than are patients with normal renal function.^52,53

Succinylcholine has been associated with severe hyperkalemia in patients with burn, severe abdominal infections,⁵⁴ severe metabolic acidosis,⁵⁵ closed head injury,⁵⁶ or conditions associated with upregulation of extrajunctional acetylcholine receptors (e.g., hemiplegia or paraplegia, muscular dystrophies, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and burn). For reviews, see Naguib et al.⁸ and Martyn and Richtsfeld.⁵⁷ Because of the risk of massive rhabdomyolysis, hyperkalemia, and death in children with undiagnosed muscle disease, succinylcholine is not recommended for use in children except for emergency tracheal ­intubation.^58–60

Myoglobinuria

Damage to skeletal muscles is suggested by the occurrence of myoglobinuria after administration of succinylcholine, especially to pediatric patients.⁶¹ It is unlikely that succinylcholine-induced fasciculations could produce muscle damage resulting in myoglobinuria. Most of the patients with rhabdomyolysis and myoglobinuria were subsequently found to have malignant hyperthermia or muscular dystrophy.

Increased Intraocular Pressure

Succinylcholine usually causes an increase in intraocular pressure. The intraocular pressure peaks at 2 to 4 minutes after administration and returns to normal by 6 minutes.⁶² This increase is likely the result of contraction of tonic myofibrils and/or transient dilatation of choroidal blood vessels. The use of succinylcholine is not widely accepted in open eye injury (when the anterior chamber is open) even though succinylcholine was shown to cause no adverse events in a series of 73 patients with penetrating eye injuries.⁶³ The efficacy of precurarization in attenuating increases in intraocular pressure following succinylcholine administration is controversial.^64–66

Increased Intragastric Pressure

Administration of succinylcholine is associated with a variable increase in intragastric and lower esophageal sphincter pressures. The increase in intragastric pressure appears to be related to (a) the intensity of fasciculations of the abdominal skeletal muscles,⁶⁷ which could be prevented by prior administration of a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocker; and (b) a direct increase in vagal tone. Administration of succinylcholine does not predispose to regurgitation in patients with an intact lower esophageal sphincter because the increase in intragastric pressure does not exceed the “barrier pressure.”⁶⁸

Increased Intracranial Pressure

Succinylcholine has the potential to increase intracranial pressure.⁶⁹ This increase can be attenuated or prevented by pretreatment with a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocker.⁷⁰

Myalgias

Postoperative skeletal muscle myalgia, which is particularly prominent in the skeletal muscles of the neck, back, and abdomen, can occur after administration of succinylcholine, especially to young adults undergoing minor surgical procedures that permit early ambulation. Myalgia localized to neck muscles may be perceived as pharyngitis (“sore throat”) by the patient and attributed to tracheal intubation by the anesthesiologist. Muscle pain occurs more frequently in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery, especially in women, than in bedridden patients.⁷¹ The incidence of muscle pain following administration of succinylcholine varies from 0.2% to 89%.⁷² The mechanism of succinylcholine-induced myalgia appears to be complex and is not fully understood. One hypothesis proposes that myalgia is secondary to muscle damage by succinylcholine-induced fasciculations.⁷¹ This hypothesis is supported by findings of myoglobinemia and increases in serum creatine kinase level following succinylcholine administration.^61,73,74 However, although prior administration of a small dose of a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocker prevents fasciculations due to succinylcholine, this approach is not always effective in preventing succinylcholine-induced myalgia.^72,75 Another hypothesis suggests a possible role for prostaglandins and cyclooxygenases in succinylcholine-induced myalgias.^76,77 Pretreatment with a prostaglandin inhibitor (lysine acetylsalicylate or diclofenac) has been shown to be effective in decreasing the incidence of muscle pain after succinylcholine administration.^76,78 A meta-analysis showed that myalgia may best be prevented with muscle relaxants, lidocaine, or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.⁷⁹ It should be noted, however, that myalgias following outpatient surgery occur even in the absence of succinyl­choline.^80,81

Masseter Spasm

Succinylcholine is a known trigger agent for malignant hyperthermia. Although an increase in tone of the masseter muscle may be an early indicator of malignant hyperthermia,⁸² it is not consistently associated with malignant hyperthermia.^83–85 It has been suggested that the high incidence of masseter spasm in children given succinylcholine may be due to inadequate succinylcholine dosage.⁸⁶

Pharmacology of Nondepolarizing Neuromuscular Blockers

Available nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers can be classified according to chemical class (the steroidal, benzylisoquinolinium, and other blockers) or according to rapidity of onset of action or duration of action (long-acting, intermediate-acting, or short-acting) of equipotent doses (Table 12-1). The pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic behaviors of currently used and new nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers are shown in Tables 12-2 and 12-3, respectively.

Benzylisoquinolinium Compounds

The South American Indians’ arrow poisons, known as curare, served as the basis for the development of the benzylisoquinoline-type relaxants. Tubocurarine, the most important curare alkaloid, was introduced as a neuromuscular blocking drug for use during surgical anesthesia.^1,2

Tubocurarine

Tubocurarine is a monoquarternary, long-acting neuromuscular blocker (Fig. 12-4).⁸⁷ There is no active metabolism of tubocurarine. It is excreted unchanged in the urine, and the liver is probably a secondary route of elimination. Therefore, and because more suitable agents are available, tubocurarine is not indicated for use in patients with either renal⁸⁸ or hepatic failure. The onset of action of tubocurarine is slow, its duration of action is long, and its recovery is slow (see Table 12-2). The usual intubating dose is 0.5 to 0.6 mg/kg; maintenance doses are 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg.

Atracurium

Atracurium consists of a racemic mixture of 10 stereoisomers.^89,90 These isomers have been separated into three geometrical isomer groups that are designated cis-cis, cis-trans, and trans-trans based on their configuration about the tetrahydroisoquinoline ring system.^89,90 The ratio of the cis-cis, cis-trans, and trans-trans isomers is approximately 10:6:1.⁹¹

Atracurium has been designed to undergo spontaneous degradation (Fig. 12-5) at physiologic temperature and pH by a mechanism called Hofmann elimination, yielding laudanosine (a tertiary amine) and a monoquaternary acrylate as metabolites.^89,92 Furthermore, atracurium can undergo ester hydrolysis. Hofmann elimination is a purely chemical process that results in loss of the positive charges by molecular fragmentation to laudanosine and a monoquaternary acrylate.^93,94 Laudanosine depends on the liver for clearance, with approximately 70% excreted in the bile and the remainder in urine.⁹⁵ Hepatic cirrhosis in humans does not alter clearance of laudanosine, whereas excretion of this metabolite is impaired in patients with biliary obstruction.⁹⁶ Laudanosine easily crosses the blood–brain barrier, and it has central nervous system stimulating properties. The seizure threshold is not known in humans. In patients in the intensive care unit, blood levels of laudanosine can be as high as 5.0 to 6.0 µg/mL.⁹⁷ There is no evidence to suggest that prolonged administration of atracurium in the operating room or in the intensive care unit in patients with normal or impaired renal function is likely to result in concentrations of laudanosine capable of producing convulsions. The plasma elimination half-life of laudanosine is similar in patients with normal and impaired renal function—197 ± 38 and 234 ± 81 minutes, respectively.^98,99Interestingly, laudanosine activates α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and δ- and κ-opioid receptors. It has been suggested that this activation has neuroprotective effects.^100–103

Cisatracurium

Cisatracurium is the 1R cis–1’R cis isomer of atracurium and represents about 15% of the marketed atracurium mixture by weight but more than 50% of the mixture in terms of potency or neuromuscular blocking activity (see Fig. 12-5). Like atracurium, cisatracurium is metabolized by Hofmann elimination to laudanosine and a monoquaternary alcohol metabolite.^104–106 There is no ester hydrolysis of the parent molecule.¹⁰⁴ Hofmann elimination accounts for 77% of the total clearance of 5 to 6 mL/kg per minute.¹⁰⁷ Twenty-three percent of the drug is cleared through organ-dependent means, with renal elimination accounting for 16% of this.¹⁰⁶ Because cisatracurium is about four to five times as potent as atracurium, about five times less laudanosine is produced, and accumulation of this metabolite is not thought to be of any consequence in clinical practice. Unlike atracurium, cisatracurium in the clinical dose range does not cause histamine release.^108,109 This indicates that the phenomenon of histamine release may be stereospecific.^108,110

Mivacurium

Mivacurium is the only currently available short-acting neuromuscular blocker in the European Union, but its use in the United States has been discontinued by the manufacturer (see Table 12-2). Mivacurium consists of a mixture of three stereoisomers. Mivacurium is metabolized by butyrylcholinesterase at about 70% to 88% the rate of succinylcholine to a monoester, a dicarboxylic acid.^111,112 Mivacurium may produce histamine release, especially if administered rapidly.¹¹³

Steroidal Compounds

The steroid skeleton possesses onium centers at different positions. In the steroidal compounds, it is probably essential that one of two nitrogen atoms in the molecule be quaternized.¹¹⁴ The presence of acetyl ester (acetylcholine-like moiety) is thought to facilitate interaction of steroidal compounds with nicotinic acetylcholine receptors at the postsynaptic muscle membrane.^7,115

Pancuronium

Pancuronium is a potent long-acting neuromuscular blocking drug with both vagolytic and butyrylcholinesterase-inhibiting properties (Fig. 12-6).¹¹⁶ About 40% to 60% of pancuronium is cleared by the kidney¹¹⁷ and 11% is excreted in the bile. A small amount (15% to 20%) is metabolized, mainly by deacetylation in the liver. The metabolites (3-OH, 17-OH, and 3,7-di-OH) are considerably less potent as neuromuscular blockers and are excreted in the urine.¹¹⁸ Accumulation of the 3-OH metabolite is responsible for prolongation of the duration of block induced by pancuronium.

Vecuronium

Vecuronium is a monoquarternary neuromuscular blocker with an intermediate duration of action. Vecuronium is simply pancuronium without the quaternizing methyl group in the 2-piperidino substitution (see Fig. 12-6).^7,119 The minor molecular difference between vecuronium and pancuronium means that vecuronium is characterized by (a) a slight decrease in potency; (b) virtual loss of the vagolytic properties of pancuronium; (c) molecular instability in solution (this explains in part the shorter duration of action of vecuronium compared with pancuronium); and (d) increased lipid solubility, which results in a greater biliary elimination of vecuronium than pancuronium.^7,120

The liver is the principal organ of elimination for vecuronium, and renal excretion accounts for excretion of approximately 30% of the administered dose. Approximately 30% to 40% of vecuronium is cleared in the bile as parent compound.¹²¹ The duration of the vecuronium-induced neuromuscular block is therefore dependent primarily on hepatic function and, to a lesser extent, on renal function.^122,123Vecuronium is metabolized in the liver by deacetylation into three possible metabolites: 3-OH, 17-OH, and 3,17-di-OH vecuronium. The 3-OH metabolite has 80% the neuromuscular blocking potency of vecuronium. Therefore, during prolonged administration of vecuronium, this metabolite may contribute to prolonged neuromuscular blockade.¹²⁴

Vecuronium is prepared as a lyophilized powder because it is less stable in solution. Vecuronium cannot be prepared as a ready-to-use solution with a sufficient shelf life, even as a buffered solution. In pancuronium, the 2-piperidine is quaternized and no longer basic (charged). Thus, it does not participate in catalysis of the 3-acetate hydrolysis.

Rocuronium

Rocuronium (see Fig. 12-6) is an intermediately acting monoquaternary neuromuscular blocker with a fast onset of action than either pancuronium or vecuronium. Rocuronium is about six times less potent than vecuronium.^125,126Rocuronium is primarily eliminated by the liver and excreted in bile. It is taken up into the liver by a carrier-mediated active transport system.¹²⁷ The putative metabolite, 17-desacetylrocuronium, has not been detected in significant quantities. Approximately 30% of rocuronium is excreted unchanged in the urine.^128,129 At room temperature, rocuronium is stable for 60 days, whereas pancuronium is stable for 6 months.

Olefinic (Double-Bonded) Isoquinolinium Diester Compounds

CW002

CW002 (AV002), a benzylisoquinolinium fumarate ester-based compound, is an investigational neuromuscular blocking drug of intermediate duration of action (Fig. 12-7).¹³⁰ CW002 was designed to undergo cysteine adduction and possibly chemical hydrolysis more slowly than gantacurium. In dogs, administration of 0.08 mg/kg (10× ED₉₅) of CW002 resulted in a duration of action of 71 ± 4 minutes.¹³¹ No signs of histamine release were observed in cats in doses up to 0.8 mg/kg (40× ED₉₅).

Potency of Nondepolarizing Neuromuscular Blockers

Drug potency is commonly expressed in terms of the dose-response relationship. The potency of neuromuscular blockers can be expressed as the dose of drug required to produce an effect—for example, 50% or 95% depression of twitch height, commonly expressed as ED₅₀ and ED₉₅, respectively.¹³² The neuromuscular blocking drugs have different potencies, as illustrated in Table 12-2. The dose-response curve for nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers is sigmoidal, and different ED values have been derived in a variety of ways. The most commonly used technique is linear regression analysis after log-dose and probit- or logit-data transformation.

Recently, Kopman et al.¹³³ reported that the ED₅₀ value is a very robust parameter and should be employed rather than the ED₉₅ value when comparing the potency of neuromuscular blockers. They noted that the ED₅₀ values calculated by different methods (nonlinear regression analysis, linear regression analysis, or Hill’s equation) were interchangeable, and that the ED₉₅ value was not a precise parameter because the confidence intervals of the ED₉₅were so wide.¹³³

Factors that Increase the Potency of Nondepolarizing Neuromuscular Blockers

Inhalational anesthetics potentiate the neuromuscular blocking effect of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers. This potentiation results mainly in a decrease in the required dosage of neuromuscular blocker and prolongation of both the duration of action of the relaxant and recovery from neuromuscular block.¹³⁴ The magnitude of this potentiation depends on several factors, including the duration of inhalational anesthesia,^135–137 the specific inhalational anesthetic used,¹³⁸ and the concentration of inhalational agent used.¹³⁹ The rank order of potentiation is desflurane > sevoflurane > isoflurane > halothane > nitrous oxide–barbiturate–opioid or propofol anesthesia.^140–142 The mechanisms proposed for this potentiation include (a) a central effect on α motoneurons and interneuronal synapses,¹⁴³ (b) inhibition of postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors,¹⁴⁴ and (c) augmentation of the antagonist’s affinity at the receptor site.¹⁴⁵

Some antibiotics can also potentiate neuromuscular blockade. The aminoglycoside antibiotics, the polymyxins, and lincomycin and clindamycin primarily inhibit the prejunctional release of acetylcholine and also depress postjunctional nicotinic acetylcholine receptor sensitivity to acetylcholine.¹⁴⁶ The tetracyclines, on the other hand, exhibit postjunctional activity only.¹⁴⁶

Hypothermia or magnesium sulfate potentiates the neuromuscular blockade induced by nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers.^147–150 The mechanism(s) underlying this potentiation may be pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, or both.¹⁴⁹ High magnesium concentrations inhibit calcium channels at the presynaptic nerve terminals that trigger the release of acetylcholine.⁸

Most local anesthetics when given in large doses potentiate neuromuscular block; in smaller doses, no clinically significant potentiation occurs.¹⁵¹ Antidysrhythmic drugs, such as quinidine, also potentiate neuromuscular block.¹⁵²

Factors that Decrease the Potency of Nondepolarizing Neuromuscular Blockers

Resistance to nondepolarizing muscle blockers has been demonstrated in patients receiving chronic anticonvulsant therapy, as evidenced by accelerated recovery from neuromuscular blockade and the need for increased doses to achieve complete neuromuscular blockade. This resistance has been attributed to increased clearance,¹⁵³ increased binding of the neuromuscular blockers to α₁-acid glycoproteins, and/or upregulation of neuromuscular acetylcholine receptors.¹⁵⁴

In hyperparathyroidism, hypercalcemia is associated with decreased sensitivity to atracurium and thus a shortened duration of neuromuscular blockade.¹⁵⁵ Increasing calcium concentrations also decreased the sensitivity to tubocurarine and pancuronium in a muscle-nerve model.¹⁵⁶

Effect of Drug Potency on Speed of Onset

The speed of onset of action is inversely proportional to the potency of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers.^157,158 Low potency is predictive of rapid onset, and high potency is predictive of slow onset. Except for atracurium,¹⁵⁹molar potency (the ED₅₀ or ED₉₅ expressed in µM/kg) is highly predictive of a drug’s time to onset of effect (at the adductor pollicis muscle).¹⁵⁸ Rocuronium has a molar potency (ED₉₅ ≈ 0.54 µM/kg), which is about 13% that of vecuronium and only 9% that of cisatracurium. Thus, rapid onset of rocuronium is to be expected. It should be noted that a drug’s measured molar potency is the end result of many contributing factors: the drug’s intrinsic potency (the CE₅₀, the biophase concentration resulting in 50% twitch depression), the rate of equilibration between plasma and biophase (ke0), the initial rate of plasma clearance, and probably other factors as well.¹⁶⁰

The influence of potency on speed of onset could be simply explained by the fact that, for an equipotent dose (e.g., a dose that results in 50% receptor occupancy), a low-potency drug (such as rocuronium) will have a higher number of molecules than a high-potency drug (such as tubocurarine). The higher number of drug molecules will result in a greater diffusion gradient of the low-potency drug from capillary to the neuromuscular junction (faster rate of drug transfer from plasma to biophase) and a greater biophase concentration of low-potency drug resulting in a fast onset.

The concept of “buffered diffusion” must be invoked to explain the slow recovery of long-acting neuromuscular blockers and to understand biophase kinetics.¹⁶¹ Buffered diffusion is the process in which diffusion of a drug (e.g., diffusion of a neuromuscular blocker from the neuromuscular junction) is impeded because it binds to extremely high-density receptors within a restricted space (neuromuscular junction). This process is seen with high-potency but not low-potency drugs. Buffered diffusion causes repetitive binding to and unbinding from receptors, keeping potent drugs such as tubocurarine in the neighborhood of effector sites and potentially lengthening the duration of effect.^162,163

Bevan¹⁶⁴ also proposed that rapid plasma clearance is associated with a rapid onset of action. The fast onset of succinylcholine is related to its rapid metabolism and plasma clearance.

Adverse Effects of Neuromuscular Blockers

Neuromuscular blocking agents seem to play a prominent role in adverse reactions that occur during anesthesia. The Committee on Safety of Medicines in the United Kingdom reported that 10.8% (218 of 2,014) of adverse drug reactions and 7.3% of deaths (21 of 286) were attributable to neuromuscular blocking drugs.¹⁶⁵

Autonomic Effects

Neuromuscular blocking agents interact with nicotinic and muscarinic cholinergic receptors within the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems and at the nicotinic receptors of the neuromuscular junction. Administration of tubocurarine is associated with marked ganglion blockade resulting in hypotension; in susceptible patients, manifestations of histamine release such as flushing, hypotension, reflex tachycardia, and bronchospasm can be seen. Pancuronium has a direct vagolytic effect. Pancuronium can block muscarinic receptors on sympathetic postganglionic nerve terminals,¹⁶⁶ resulting in inhibition of a negative-feedback mechanism whereby excessive catecholamine release is modulated or prevented.¹⁶⁷ Pancuronium may also stimulate catecholamine release from adrenergic nerve terminals.¹⁶⁸

Histamine Release

Histamine release by benzylisoquinolinium compounds such as mivacurium, atracurium, and tubocurarine can cause skin flushing, decreases in blood pressure and systemic vascular resistance, and increases in pulse rate.^{113,169–172} In contrast, steroidal neuromuscular blocking drugs are not associated with histamine release in typical clinical doses.^173–175 The clinical effects of histamine are seen when plasma concentrations increase to 200% to 300% of baseline values, especially if such concentrations are achieved quickly by rapid drug administration. The effect is usually of short duration (1 to 5 minutes), is dose related, and is clinically insignificant in healthy patients. Histamine has positive inotropic and chronotropic effects on the myocardial H₂ receptors, and there is some evidence that its chronotropic effect may result in part from the liberation of catecholamines.¹⁷⁶ While ganglionic block secondary to the administration of tubocurarine has been demonstrated to occur in various species,¹⁷⁷ the peripheral venous and arteriolar dilatation via stimulation of vascular H₁ and H₂ receptors can result in a significant degree of hypotension as well as carotid sinus–mediated reflex response to histamine-induced peripheral vasodilatation.¹⁷¹ Other substances liberated by mast cell degranulation, such as tryptase or prostaglandins, may also play a role.¹⁷⁸ The serosal mast cell, located in the skin and connective tissue and near blood vessels and nerves, is principally involved in the degranulation process.¹⁷⁸

For patients who may be compromised hemodynamically, selecting a drug with less or no histamine release (cisatracurium, vecuronium, or rocuronium) may be appropriate. Another strategy for maintaining cardiovascular stability involves slow administration of benzylisoquinolinium neuromuscular blocking drugs (over 60 seconds), or the prophylactic use of the combined histamine H₁- and H₂-receptor antagonists.

Respiratory Effects

The administration of benzylisoquinolinium neuromuscular blocking drugs (with the exception of cisatracurium) is associated with histamine release, which may result in increased airway resistance and bronchospasm in patients with hyperactive airway disease.

Allergic Reactions

Life-threatening anaphylactic (immune-mediated) or anaphylactoid reactions during anesthesia have been estimated to occur in 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 25,000 administrations and are associated with a mortality rate of about 5%.^179,180 In France, the most common causes of anaphylaxis in patients who experienced allergic reactions were reported to be neuromuscular blocking drugs (58.2%), latex (16.7%), and antibiotics (15.1%).¹⁸¹ Anaphylactic reactions are mediated through immune responses involving immunoglobulin E antibodies fixed to mast cells. Anaphylactoid reactions are not immune mediated, and represent exaggerated pharmacologic responses in very sensitive individuals, who represent a very small proportion of the population. Cross-reactivity has been reported between neuromuscular blocking drugs and food, cosmetics, disinfectants, and industrial materials.¹⁸²

Steroidal compounds (e.g., rocuronium, vecuronium, or pancuronium) result in no significant histamine release.^113,175 Nevertheless, in the aforementioned series from France, among cases of anaphylaxis due to neuromuscular blocking drugs, 43.1% were due to rocuronium and 22.6% to succinylcholine.¹⁸¹ There are currently no standards regarding which diagnostic tests (skin prick test, interdermal test, or immunoglobulin E testing) should be performed to identify patients at risk.¹⁸³

Treatment of anaphylactic reactions includes immediate administration of oxygen (100%) and intravenous epinephrine (10 to 20 µg/kg). Early tracheal intubation with a cuffed endotracheal tube should be considered in patients with rapidly developing angioedema. Fluids (crystalloid and/or colloid solutions) must be administered concurrently. Norepinephrine or a sympathomimetic drug (e.g., phenylephrine) may also be necessary to maintain perfusion pressure until the intravascular fluid volume can be restored. Dysrhythmias should be treated. The use of antihistamines and/or steroids is controversial.

Drugs for Reversal of Neuromuscular Blockade

Acetylcholinesterase at the Neuromuscular Junction

At the neuromuscular junction, acetylcholinesterase is the enzyme responsible for rapid hydrolysis of released acetylcholine.⁹ Approximately 50% of the released acetylcholine is hydrolyzed during its diffusion across the synaptic cleft, before reaching nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Acetylcholinesterase has one of the highest catalytic efficiencies known. It can catalyze acetylcholine hydrolysis at a rate of 4,000 molecules of acetylcholine hydrolyzed per active site per second, which is nearly the rate of diffusion.⁹ Acetylcholinesterase is highly concentrated at the neuromuscular junction but is present in a lower concentration throughout the length of muscle fibers.¹⁸⁴

Mechanisms of Action of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors

Recovery from muscle relaxation induced by nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers ultimately depends on elimination of the neuromuscular blocker from the body. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (e.g., neostigmine, edrophonium, and less commonly, pyridostigmine) are used clinically to antagonize the residual effects of neuromuscular blockers and to accelerate recovery from nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade. The acetylcholine that accumulates at the neuromuscular junction after administration of neostigmine competes with the residual molecules of the neuromuscular blocking drug for the available unoccupied nicotinic acetylcholine receptors at the neuromuscular junction. The clinical implication is that neostigmine has a ceiling effect on acetylcholinesterase. Once the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase is complete, administering additional doses of neostigmine will serve no useful purpose because the concentration of acetylcholine that can be produced at the neuromuscular junction is finite. “In practical terms, the maximum depth of block that can be antagonized approximately corresponds to the reappearance of the fourth response to TOF stimulation.”¹⁸⁵ Because of their ceiling effect, the anticholinesterases cannot effectively antagonize profound or deep levels of neuromuscular blockade. Indeed, administering more neostigmine at this point may in fact worsen neuromuscular recovery.¹⁸⁶ This points to the limitations posed by the use of neostigmine in clinical practice and explains, in part, the high incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade.¹⁸⁷

Antagonism of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade by acetylcholinesterase inhibitors depends primarily on five factors: (a) the depth of the blockade when reversal is attempted, (b) the anticholinesterase chosen, (c) the dose administered, (d) the rate of spontaneous clear of the neuromuscular blocker from plasma, and (e) the choice and depth of anesthetic agents administered.¹⁸⁸ For a detailed review, see Bevan and colleagues.^189,190 For neostigmine, the maximum effective dose is in the 60 to 80 µg/kg range,^191,192 and for edrophonium, it is in the 1.0 to 1.5 mg/kg range.^193,194 Antagonism of residual neuromuscular blockade induced by the various nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers is similar (or possibly greater) in children and adults.¹⁹⁵ The potencies of different acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in antagonizing the currently available neuromuscular blockers (vecuronium, rocuronium, and cisatracurium) in different clinical scenarios have been reported by several groups of investigators.^196–198Neostigmine is still the anticholinesterase agent most widely used by anesthesiologists worldwide.¹⁹⁹

Clinical Pharmacology

Pharmacokinetics of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors

The elimination half-life of edrophonium is similar to those of neostigmine and pyridostigmine,²⁰⁰ although that of pyridostigmine is somewhat longer.^201,202 Renal excretion accounts for about 50% of the excretion of neostigmine and about 75% of that of pyridostigmine and edrophonium. Renal failure decreases the plasma clearance of neostigmine, pyridostigmine, and edrophonium as much as, if not more than, that of the long-acting neuromuscular blockers.

Side Effects of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors

Inhibition of acetylcholinesterase not only increases the concentration of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction (nicotinic site) but also at all other synapses that use acetylcholine as a transmitter.

Cardiovascular Side Effects

Because only the nicotinic effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are desired, the muscarinic effects must be blocked by atropine or glycopyrrolate.⁷ To minimize the muscarinic cardiovascular side effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, an anticholinergic agent should be coadministered with the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. Atropine (7 to 10 µg/kg) matches the onset of action and pharmacodynamic profile of the rapid-acting edrophonium (0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg),⁷ and glycopyrrolate (7 to 15 µg/kg) matches the slower acting neostigmine (40 to 70 µg/kg) and pyridostigmine.^203,204 In patients with preexisting cardiac disease, glycopyrrolate may be preferable to atropine,²⁰⁵ and the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor and anticholinergic should be administered slowly (e.g., over 2 to 5 minutes). The hemodynamic effects of tracheal extubation are significantly greater than that following the coadministration of neostigmine and glycopyrrolate.

Pulmonary and Alimentary Side Effects

Administration of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors is associated with bronchoconstriction, increased airway resistance, increased salivation, and increased bowel motility (muscarinic effects). Anticholinergics tend to reduce this effect. Findings on whether neostigmine increases the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting are discrepant.^206,207 Neostigmine has been described as having antiemetic properties²⁰⁸ and as having no effect on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.^207,209

Monitoring of Neuromuscular Function

Monitoring of neuromuscular function after administration of a neuromuscular blocking drug serves at least two purposes in clinical settings. First, it allows the anesthesiologist to administer these agents with appropriate dosing; second, it ensures that the patient recovers adequately from residual effects of the neuromuscular blocker, thus guaranteeing patient safety. In the operating room, the depth of neuromuscular blockade is typically monitored by observing the response to stimulation of any superficial neuromuscular unit. Most commonly, contraction of the adductor pollicis muscle associated with stimulation of the ulnar nerve, either at the wrist or the elbow, is monitored. In certain circumstances, the peroneal nerve or the facial nerve may be monitored.

Clinical bedside criteria for tracheal extubation (such as a 5-second head lift, or ability to generate a peak negative inspiratory force of −25 to −30 cm H₂O) are insensitive indicators of the adequacy of neuromuscular recovery.²¹⁰Kopman²¹¹ noted that patients could sustain a 5-second head lift at a TOF ratio of <0.60. It is recommended that objective monitoring (e.g., digital display of the TOF ratio in real time) be used in the clinical setting. Subjective (visual or tactile) evaluation of the evoked muscular response to TOF stimulation is extremely inaccurate. Subjective evaluation of the evoked muscular response to TOF and tetanic stimulation are notoriously inaccurate as estimates of fade or postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade.^212,213 Depth of the blockade during maintenance of and recovery from the blockade should be monitored with repeated TOF stimuli.

Following administration of a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agent, it is essential to ensure adequate return of normal neuromuscular function, to a TOF ratio of ≥0.9. A TOF ratio of <0.9 in unanesthetized volunteers has been associated with difficulty in speaking and swallowing, visual disturbances,²¹¹ significant pharyngeal dysfunction resulting in a four- to fivefold increase in the risk of aspiration,^214,215 and decrease in hypoxic ventilatory drive.²¹⁶

Perhaps the most convincing evidence that the use of an objective neuromuscular monitor (combined with a strong educational effort at the departmental level) can decrease the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade comes from two studies by Baillard et al.^217,218 The first was a prospective study of the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade following administration of vecuronium in 568 consecutive patients over a 3-month period in 1995. As was customary in the authors’ department, no anticholinesterase antagonists were used in this series of patients, and peripheral nerve stimulatory devices were rarely used (<2.0%) intraoperatively. Postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (indicated by an acceleromyographic TOF ratio of <0.70) was present in 42% of patients in the postanesthesia care unit. Of 435 patients who had been extubated in the operating room, the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade was 33%.

As a result of these rather alarming findings, Baillard’s department placed acceleromyographic monitors in all operating rooms a short time later. The department instituted a program of education about the use of neuromuscular monitoring and the indications for neostigmine administration. The authors’ findings regarding the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade were distributed to department staff. They then conducted repeat 3-month surveys of clinical practice in the years 2000 (n = 130), 2002 (n = 101), and 2004 (n = 218) to determine the success of their educational efforts. In the 9-year interval between the initial and the 2004 survey, the use of intraoperative monitoring of neuromuscular function rose from 2% to 60%, and reversal of residual antagonism increased from 6% to 42% of cases. One other notable change was in the choice of relaxant. In 1995, all patients received vecuronium, but this agent was gradually replaced by atracurium, which was used in 99% of cases in 2004. As a result of these changes in clinical practice, the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (acceleromyographic TOF ratio of <0.90) in Baillard’s department decreased from 62% to <4%.

Although quantitative neuromuscular function monitoring is recommended, many anesthetics are given without such monitoring. Appropriate intraoperative use of a conventional nerve stimulator may decrease (but not eliminate) the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade.²¹⁹ If neostigmine administration is timed at a TOF count of 4, then clinically significant postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade should be a rare event. Quantitative monitors (such as acceleromyography) should be seriously considered in two situations: (a) when no fade on TOF stimulation can be detected manually and the anesthesiologist is deciding not to reverse neuromuscular block or (b) when the anesthesiologist is attempting to reverse deep nondepolarizing block (TOF count ≤3).

Limitations of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors

As indicated in the previous sections, postanesthetic morbidity in the form of incomplete reversal and residual postoperative weakness is a frequent occurrence.^{187,220–224} In 2003, for example, Debaene and colleagues²²¹ reported a 45% incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade in patients arriving in the postanesthesia care unit. Moreover, a recent survey indicated that most practitioners do not know what constitutes adequate recovery from neuromuscular blockade.²²⁵ Although an argument can be made that these problems could be attributed to (a) lack of routine use of peripheral nerve stimulators (and more importantly, the quantitative ones) or (b) the ceiling effect of the reversal agents when administered at a deep level of neuromuscular blockade,^226,227 one study found that, despite both the use of nerve stimulators by clinicians with knowledge and expertise and administration of neostigmine, the incidence of critical respiratory events in the postoperative care unit remained a significant 0.8%.²²²Clearly, avoidance of critical respiratory events requires changes in clinical care.²²⁴

Nonclassic Reversal Drugs

Only a few studies have explored the potential of nonclassic reversal drugs that act independently of acetylcholinesterase inhibition. One such agent, purified human plasma cholinesterase, has been shown to be effective and safe in antagonizing mivacurium-induced neuromuscular blockade.²²⁸ Similarly, cysteine has been shown to reverse the neuromuscular blocking effects of gantacurium.²²⁹ Sugammadex, a novel selective relaxant-binding agent, is able to reverse both shallow and profound aminosteroid-induced neuromuscular blockade, and has a unique mechanism of action (see the following text) that distinguishes it from cholinesterase inhibitors.

Sugammadex: A Novel Selective Relaxant-binding Agent

Chemistry

Sugammadex is a modified γ-cyclodextrin (Fig. 12-8).^230–233 Cyclodextrins are cyclic dextrose units joined through one to four glycosyl bonds that are produced from starch or starch derivates using cyclodextrin glycosyltransferase. The three natural unmodified cyclodextrins consist of 6-, 7-, or 8-cyclic oligosaccharides and are called α-, β-, or γ-cyclodextrin, respectively. Their three-dimensional structures, which resemble a hollow, truncated cone or a doughnut, have a hydrophobic cavity and a hydrophilic exterior because of the presence of polar hydroxyl groups. Hydrophobic interactions trap the drug into the cyclodextrin cavity (the doughnut hole), resulting in formation of a water-soluble guest-host complex.

These modifications resulted in a sugammadex compound (with a molecular weight of 2,178) that is highly water soluble with a hydrophobic cavity large enough to encapsulate steroidal neuromuscular blocking drugs, especially rocuronium.^230–233 Sugammadex exerts its effect by forming very tight complexes at a 1:1 ratio with steroidal neuromuscular blocking agents (rocuronium > vecuronium >> pancuronium).^230–233 The intermolecular (van der Waals) forces, thermodynamic (hydrogen) bonds, and hydrophobic interactions of the sugammadex-rocuronium complex make it very tight.²³⁰ The sugammadex-rocuronium complex has a very high association rate and a very low dissociation rate. It is estimated that for every 30 million sugammadex-rocuronium complexes, only one complex dissociates.

Sugammadex is the first selective relaxant-binding agent. It exerts no effect on acetylcholinesterases or on any receptor system in the body, thus eliminating the need for anticholinergic drugs and their undesirable adverse effects. Moreover, the unique mechanism of reversal by encapsulation is independent of the depth of neuromuscular block; thus, reversal can be accomplished even during profound neuromuscular block.

Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism

Sugammadex is biologically inactive and does not bind to plasma proteins.^234–236 Approximately 75% of the dose was eliminated through the urine. The mean percentage of the dose excreted in urine up to 24 hours after administration varied between 59% and 80%.²³⁵ The kinetics of sugammadex appear to be dose dependent, in that clearance increased, and elimination half-life decreased, when the sugammadex dose was increased from 0.15 to 1.0 mg/kg.²³⁵

In the absence of sugammadex, rocuronium is eliminated mainly by biliary excretion (>75%) and to a lesser degree by renal excretion (10% to 25%). The plasma clearance of sugammadex alone is approximately three times lower than that of rocuronium alone.²³⁷ In volunteers, the plasma clearance of rocuronium was decreased by a factor of >2 after administration of a ≥2.0 mg/kg dose of sugammadex.²³⁵ This is because the biliary route of excretion becomes unavailable for the rocuronium-sugammadex complex, and rocuronium clearance decreases to a value approaching the glomerular filtration rate (120 mL per minute). As noted earlier, after administration of sugammadex, the plasma concentration of free rocuronium decreases rapidly, but the total plasma concentration of rocuronium (both free and that bound to sugammadex) increases.²³⁸

Because of the soluble nature of the sugammadex-rocuronium complex, urinary excretion of the complex is the major route of elimination of the rocuronium (65% to 97% of the administered dose is recovered in urine).^235,237Excretion is rapid; approximately 70% of the administered dose is excreted within 6 hours and >90% within 24 hours. The renal excretion of rocuronium is increased by more than 100% after administration of 4 to 8 mg/kg of sugammadex.²³⁷

Sugammadex does not bind to human plasma proteins and erythrocytes to a significant extent. Metabolism of sugammadex is at most very limited, and the drug is predominantly eliminated unchanged by the kidneys. In patients with substantial renal impairment, clearances of sugammadex and rocuronium were decreased by a factor of 16 and 3.7, respectively, relative to that in healthy subjects, and the elimination half-lives were increased by a factor of 15 and 2.5, respectively. The effectiveness of dialysis in removing sugammadex and rocuronium from plasma was not demonstrated consistently. Therefore, sugammadex should be avoided in patients with a creatinine clearance of <30 mL per minute.

Pharmacodynamics

Sugammadex, used in appropriate doses, is capable of reversing any depth of neuromuscular blockade (profound or shallow) induced by rocuronium or vecuronium to a TOF ratio of ≥0.9 within 3 minutes.^224,239 During rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade, intravenous administration of sugammadex results in rapid removal of free rocuronium or vecuronium molecules from the plasma. This creates a concentration gradient favoring movement of the remaining rocuronium or vecuronium molecules from the neuromuscular junction back into the plasma, where they are encapsulated by free sugammadex molecules. The latter molecules also enter the tissues and form a complex with the rocuronium or vecuronium. Therefore, the neuromuscular blockade of these agents is terminated rapidly by their diffusion away from the neuromuscular junction back into the plasma. This results in an increase in the total plasma concentration of rocuronium (both free and bound to sugammadex)²³⁸ or vecuronium.

The efficacy of sugammadex in antagonizing different levels of rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade has been demonstrated in several clinical studies.^{237,240–245} At appropriate doses, no recurarization has been reported in human studies.

With profound block induced by rocuronium or vecuronium, larger doses of sugammadex (8 to 16 mg/kg) are required for adequate and rapid recovery. In Figure 12-9, the speed of recovery from 1.2 mg/kg rocuronium followed 3 minutes later by 16 mg/kg sugammadex is compared with the speed of spontaneous recovery from 1.0 mg/kg succinylcholine in surgical patients.²³⁹ The total duration from administration of rocuronium until recovery of the TOF ratio (the ratio of the fourth to the first twitch height of the TOF) to ≥0.9 was shorter than the time needed for a similar degree of spontaneous recovery from 1.0 mg/kg succinylcholine-induced blockade. It should be noted, however, that all drugs behave in a dose-response manner.²⁴⁶ A temporary decrease in TOF response was observed after reversal of muscle relaxation with an inadequate dose (0.5 mg/kg) of sugammadex administered 42 minutes after 0.9 mg/kg of rocuronium.²⁴⁷

Published data indicate that, if TOF count is 2 during recovery from rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade, administering 2 mg/kg of sugammadex would be sufficient to produce adequate neuromuscular recovery (a TOF ratio of 0.9 or greater). Similarly, 4 mg/kg of sugammadex would be sufficient to produce adequate neuromuscular recovery from a deeper block at a 1 to 2 posttetanic count. A still more profound block would require a greater dose of sugammadex, in the range of 8 to 16 mg/kg.

Sugammadex is ineffective against succinylcholine and benzylisoquinolinium neuromuscular blockers such as mivacurium, atracurium, and cisatracurium because it cannot form inclusion complexes with these drugs.²⁴⁸Therefore, if neuromuscular blockade must be reestablished after using sugammadex, one of the benzylisoquinolinium neuromuscular blockers should be considered.

Safety and Tolerability

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expressed concerns about the safety of sugammadex, citing its possible association with allergic reactions and bleeding, and sugammadex has not been approved for clinical use in the United States. More than 5 million doses of sugammadex have been administered worldwide.

References

1. Läwen A. Über die Verbindung der Lokalanästhesie mit der Narkose, über hohe Extraduralanästhesie und epidurale Injektionen anästhesierender Lösungen bei tabischen Magenkrisen. Beitr Klin Chir. 1912;80:168–180.

2. Bodman RI, Gillies D. Harold Griffith: The Evolution of Modern Anaesthesia. Toronto, Canada: Hannah Institute & Dundurn Press; 1992.

3. Sine SM, Claudio T, Sigworth FJ. Activation of Torpedo acetylcholine receptors expressed in mouse fibroblasts. Single channel current kinetics reveal distinct agonist binding affinities. J Gen Physiol. 1990;96:395–437.

4. Devillers-Thiery A, Galzi JL, Eisele JL, et al. Functional architecture of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor: a prototype of ligand-gated ion channels. J Membr Biol. 1993;136:97–112.

5. Grosman C, Zhou M, Auerbach A. Mapping the conformational wave of acetylcholine receptor channel gating. Nature. 2000;403:773–776.

6. Grosman C, Salamone FN, Sine SM, et al. The extracellular linker of muscle acetylcholine receptor channels is a gating control element. J Gen Physiol. 2000;116:237–240.

7. Bowman WC. Pharmacology of Neuromuscular Function. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: Wright; 1990.

8. Naguib M, Flood P, McArdle JJ, et al. Advances in neurobiology of the neuromuscular junction: implications for the anesthesiologist. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:202–231.

9. Rosenberry TL. Acetylcholinesterase. Adv Enzymol Relat Areas Mol Biol. 1975;43:103–218.

10. Bowman WC. Prejunctional and postjunctional cholinoceptors at the neuromuscular junction. Anesth Analg. 1980;59:935–943.

11. Prior C, Tian L, Dempster J, et al. Prejunctional actions of muscle relaxants: synaptic vesicles and transmitter mobilization as sites of action. Gen Pharmacol. 1995;26:659–666.

12. Faria M, Oliveira L, Timoteo MA, et al. Blockade of neuronal facilitatory nicotinic receptors containing alpha3beta2 subunits contribute to tetanic fade in the rat isolated diaphragm. Synapse. 2003;49:77–88.

13. Chang CC, Hong SJ. Dissociation of the end-plate potential run-down and the tetanic fade from the postsynaptic inhibition of acetylcholine receptor by alpha-neurotoxins. Exp Neurol. 1987;98: 509–517.

14. Nagashima M, Yasuhara S, Frick CG, et al. Alpha-bungarotoxin but not botulinum toxin causes fade during repetitive stimulation. In: ASA Annual Meeting. Orlando, FL: American Society of Anesthesiologists; 2008. A1399.

15. Torda TA, Graham GG, Warwick NR, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of suxamethonium. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1997;25:272–278.

16. Cook DR, Wingard LB, Taylor FH. Pharmacokinetics of succinylcholine in infants, children, and adults. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1976;20:493–498.

17. Smith CE, Donati F, Bevan DR. Dose-response curves for succinylcholine: single versus cumulative techniques. Anesthesiology. 1988;69:338–342.

18. Kopman AF, Klewicka MM, Neuman GG. An alternate method for estimating the dose-response relationships of neuromuscular blocking drugs. Anesth Analg. 2000;90:1191–1197.

19. Viby-Mogensen J. Correlation of succinylcholine duration of action with plasma cholinesterase activity in subjects with the genotypically normal enzyme. Anesthesiology. 1980;53:517–520.

20. Katz RL, Ryan JF. The neuromuscular effects of suxamethonium in man. Br J Anaesth. 1969;41:381–390.

21. Naguib M, Samarkandi A, Riad W, et al. Optimal dose of succinylcholine revisited. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:1045–1049.

22. Blobner M, Mirakhur RK, Wierda JM, et al. Rapacuronium 2.0 or 2.5 mg kg-1 for rapid-sequence induction: comparison with succinylcholine 1.0 mg kg-1. Br J Anaesth. 2000;85:724–731.

23. Andrews JI, Kumar N, van den Brom RH, et al. A large simple randomized trial of rocuronium versus succinylcholine in rapid-sequence induction of anaesthesia along with propofol. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1999;43:4–8.

24. Sparr HJ, Mellinghoff H, Blobner M, et al. Comparison of intubating conditions after rapacuronium (Org 9487) and succinylcholine following rapid sequence induction in adult patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:537–541.

25. Naguib M, Samarkandi AH, El-Din ME, et al. The dose of succinylcholine required for excellent endotracheal intubating conditions. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:151–155.

26. Gissen AJ, Katz RL, Karis JH, et al. Neuromuscular block in man during prolonged arterial infusion with succinylcholine. Anesthesiology. 1966;27:242–249.

27. Foldes FF, McNall PG, Birch JH. The neuromuscular activity of succinylmonocholine iodide in man. Br Med J. 1954;1:967.

28. Lockridge O, Bartels CF, Vaughan TA, et al. Complete amino acid sequence of human serum cholinesterase. J Biol Chem. 1987;262:549–557.

29. Jensen FS, Schwartz M, Viby-Mogensen J. Identification of human plasma cholinesterase variants using molecular biological techniques. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1995;39:142–149.

30. Foldes FF, Rendell-Baker L, Birch JH. Causes and prevention of prolonged apnea with succinylcholine. Anesth Analg. 1956;35:609.

31. Lepage L, Schiele F, Gueguen R, et al. Total cholinesterase in plasma: biological variations and reference limits. Clin Chem. 1985;31: 546–550.

32. Kopman AF, Strachovsky G, Lichtenstein L. Prolonged response to succinylcholine following physostigmine. Anesthesiology. 1978; 49:142–143.

33. Sunew KY, Hicks RG. Effects of neostigmine and pyridostigmine on duration of succinylcholine action and pseudocholinesterase activity. Anesthesiology. 1978;49:188–191.

34. Kao YJ, Tellez J, Turner DR. Dose-dependent effect of metoclopramide on cholinesterases and suxamethonium metabolism. Br J Anaesth. 1990;65:220–224.

35. Fisher DM, Caldwell JE, Sharma M, et al. The influence of bambuterol (carbamylated terbutaline) on the duration of action of succinylcholine-induced paralysis in humans. Anesthesiology. 1988; 69:757–759.

36. Bang U, Viby-Mogensen J, Wiren JE, et al. The effect of bambuterol (carbamylated terbutaline) on plasma cholinesterase activity and suxamethonium-induced neuromuscular blockade in genotypically normal patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1990;34:596–599.

37. Barabas E, Zsigmond EK, Kirkpatrick AF. The inhibitory effect of esmolol on human plasmacholinesterase. Can Anaesth Soc J. 1986;33:332–335.

38. Murthy VS, Patel KD, Elangovan RG, et al. Cardiovascular and neuromuscular effects of esmolol during induction of anesthesia. J Clin Pharmacol. 1986;26:351–357.

39. Devcic A, Munshi CA, Gandhi SK, et al. Antagonism of mivacurium neuromuscular block: neostigmine versus edrophonium. Anesth Analg. 1995;81:1005–1009.

40. Pantuck EJ. Plasma cholinesterase: gene and variations. Anesth Analg. 1993;77:380–386.

41. Goodall R. Cholinesterase: phenotyping and genotyping. Ann Clin Biochem. 2004;41:98–110.

42. Kalow W, Staron N. On distribution and inheritance of atypical forms of human serum cholinesterase, as indicated by dibucaine numbers. Can J Biochem Physiol. 1957;35:1305–1320.

43. Kalow W, Genest K. A method for the detection of atypical forms of human serum cholinesterase: determination of dibucaine numbers. Can J Biochem. 1957;35:339.

44. Viby-Mogensen J, Hanel HK. Prolonged apnoea after suxamethonium: an analysis of the first 225 cases reported to the Danish Cholinesterase Research Unit. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1978; 22:371–380.

45. Ramsey FM, Lebowitz PW, Savarese JJ, et al. Clinical characteristics of long-term succinylcholine neuromuscular blockade during balanced anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1980;59:110–116.

46. Yoshida A, Motulsky AG. A pseudocholinesterase variant (E Cynthiana) associated with elevated plasma enzyme activity. Am J Hum Genet. 1969;21:486–498.

47. Warran P, Theeman M, Bold AM, et al. Hypercholinesterasaemia and suxamethonium resistance. Anaesthesia. 1987;42:855–857.

48. Naguib M, Gomaa M, Samarkandi AH, et al. Increased plasma cholinesterase activity and mivacurium resistance: report of a family. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:1579–1582.

49. Craythorne NW, Turndorf H, Dripps RD. Changes in pulse rate and rhythm associated with the use of succinylcholine in anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology. 1960;21:465.

50. Stoelting RK, Peterson C. Heart-rate slowing and junctional rhythm following intravenous succinylcholine with and without intramuscular atropine preanesthetic medication. Anesth Analg. 1975;54:705–709.

51. Derbyshire DR, Chmielewski A, Fell D, et al. Plasma catecholamine responses to tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1983;55:855–860.

52. Walton JD, Farman JV. Suxamethonium hyperkalaemia in uraemic neuropathy. Anaesthesia. 1973;28:666–668.

53. Powell JN, Golby M. The pattern of potassium liberation following a single dose of suxamethonium in normal and uraemic rats. Br J Anaesth. 1971;43:662–668.

54. Kohlschutter B, Baur H, Roth F. Suxamethonium-induced hyperkalaemia in patients with severe intra-abdominal infections. Br J Anaesth. 1976;48:557–562.

55. Schwartz DE, Kelly B, Caldwell JE, et al. Succinylcholine-induced hyperkalemic arrest in a patient with severe metabolic acidosis and exsanguinating hemorrhage. Anesth Analg. 1992;75:291–293.

56. Stevenson PH, Birch AA. Succinylcholine-induced hyperkalemia in a patient with a closed head injury. Anesthesiology. 1979;51:89–90.

57. Martyn JA, Richtsfeld M. Succinylcholine-induced hyperkalemia in acquired pathologic states: etiologic factors and molecular mechanisms. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:158–169.

58. Rosenberg H, Gronert GA. Intractable cardiac arrest in children given succinylcholine. Anesthesiology. 1992;77:1054.

59. Morell RC, Berman JM, Royster RI, et al. Revised label regarding use of succinylcholine in children and adolescents. Anesthesiology. 1994;80:242–245.

60. Badgwell JM, Hall SC, Lockhart C. Revised label regarding use of succinylcholine in children and adolescents. Anesthesiology. 1994;80:243–245.

61. Ryan JF, Kagen LJ, Hyman AI. Myoglobinemia after a single dose of succinylcholine. N Engl J Med. 1971;285:824–827.

62. Pandey K, Badola RP, Kumar S. Time course of intraocular hypertension produced by suxamethonium. Br J Anaesth. 1972;44:191–196.

63. Libonati MM, Leahy JJ, Ellison N. The use of succinylcholine in open eye surgery. Anesthesiology. 1985;62:637–640.

64. Meyers EF, Krupin T, Johnson M, et al. Failure of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockers to inhibit succinylcholine-induced increased intraocular pressure, a controlled study. Anesthesiology. 1978;48:149–151.

65. Konchigeri HN, Lee YE, Venugopal K. Effect of pancuronium on intraocular pressure changes induced by succinylcholine. Can Anaesth Soc J. 1979;26:479–481.

66. Miller RD, Way WL, Hickey RF. Inhibition of succinylcholine-­induced increased intraocular pressure by non-depolarizing muscle relaxants. Anesthesiology. 1968;29:123–126.

67. Miller RD, Way WL. Inhibition of succinylcholine-induced increased intragastric pressure by nondepolarizing muscle relaxants and lidocaine. Anesthesiology. 1971;34:185–188.

68. Smith G, Dalling R, Williams TI. Gastro-oesophageal pressure gradient changes produced by induction of anaesthesia and suxamethonium. Br J Anaesth. 1978;50:1137–1143.

69. Minton MD, Grosslight K, Stirt JA, et al. Increases in intracranial pressure from succinylcholine: prevention by prior nondepolarizing blockade. Anesthesiology. 1986;65:165–169.

70. Stirt JA, Grosslight KR, Bedford RF, et al. “Defasciculation” with metocurine prevents succinylcholine-induced increases in intracranial pressure. Anesthesiology. 1987;67:50–53.

71. Waters DJ, Mapleson WW. Suxamethonium pains: hypothesis and observation. Anaesthesia. 1971;26:127–141.

72. Brodsky JB, Brock-Utne JG, Samuels SI. Pancuronium pretreatment and post-succinylcholine myalgias. Anesthesiology. 1979;51: 259–261.

73. Maddineni VR, Mirakhur RK, Cooper AR. Myalgia and biochemical changes following suxamethonium after induction of anaesthesia with thiopentone or propofol. Anaesthesia. 1993;48:626–628.

74. McLoughlin C, Elliott P, McCarthy G, et al. Muscle pains and biochemical changes following suxamethonium administration after six pretreatment regimens. Anaesthesia. 1992;47:202–206.

75. Demers-Pelletier J, Drolet P, Girard M, et al. Comparison of rocuronium and d-tubocurarine for prevention of succinylcholine-induced fasciculations and myalgia. Can J Anaesth. 1997;44:1144–1147.

76. Naguib M, Farag H, Magbagbeola JA. Effect of pre-treatment with lysine acetyl salicylate on suxamethonium-induced myalgia. Br J Anaesth. 1987;59:606–610.

77. Jackson MJ, Wagenmakers AJ, Edwards RH. Effect of inhibitors of arachidonic acid metabolism on efflux of intracellular enzymes from skeletal muscle following experimental damage. Biochem J. 1987;241:403–407.

78. Kahraman S, Ercan S, Aypar U, et al. Effect of preoperative i.m. administration of diclofenac on suxamethonium-induced myalgia. Br J Anaesth. 1993;71:238–241.

79. Schreiber JU, Lysakowski C, Fuchs-Buder T, et al. Prevention of succinylcholine-induced fasciculation and myalgia: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:877–884.

80. Zahl K, Apfelbaum JL. Muscle pain occurs after outpatient laparoscopy despite the substitution of vecuronium for succinylcholine. Anesthesiology. 1989;70:408–411.

81. Smith I, Ding Y, White PF. Muscle pain after outpatient laparoscopy—influence of propofol versus thiopental and enflurane. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:1181–1184.

82. Donlon JV, Newfield P, Sreter F, et al. Implications of masseter spasm after succinylcholine. Anesthesiology. 1978;49:298–301.

83. Van der Spek AF, Fang WB, Ashton-Miller JA, et al. The effects of succinylcholine on mouth opening. Anesthesiology. 1987;67: 459–465.

84. Leary NP, Ellis FR. Masseteric muscle spasm as a normal response to suxamethonium. Br J Anaesth. 1990;64:488–492.

85. Habre W, Sims C. Masseter spasm and elevated creatine kinase after intravenous induction in a child. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1996; 24:496–499.

86. Meakin G, Walker RW, Dearlove OR. Myotonic and neuromuscular blocking effects of increased doses of suxamethonium in infants and children. Br J Anaesth. 1990;65:816–818.

87. Everett AJ, Lowe LA, Wilkinson S. Revision of the structures of (+)-tubocurarine chloride and (+)-chondocurine. J Chem Soc. 1970;D:1020–1021.

88. Miller RD, Matteo RS, Benet LZ, et al. The pharmacokinetics of d-tubocurarine in man with and without renal failure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1977;202:1–7.

89. Stenlake JB, Waigh RD, Dewar GH, et al. Biodegradable neuromuscular blocking agents. Part 6—stereochemical studies on atracurium and related polyalkylene di-esters. Eur J Med Chem. 1984;19:441–450.

90. Tsui D, Graham GG, Torda TA. The pharmacokinetics of atracurium isomers in vitro and in humans. Anesthesiology. 1987;67: 722–728.

91. Nehmer U. Simultaneous determination of atracurium besylate and its major decomposition products and related impurities by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr. 1988;435:425–433.

92. Stenlake JB, Waigh RD, Urwin J, et al. Atracurium: conception and inception. Br J Anaesth. 1983;55(suppl 1):3S–10S.

93. Neill EA, Chapple DJ, Thompson CW. Metabolism and kinetics of atracurium: an overview. Br J Anaesth. 1983;55(suppl 1):23S–25S.

94. Chapple DJ, Clark JS. Pharmacological action of breakdown products of atracurium and related substances. Br J Anaesth. 1983;55 (suppl 1):11S–15S.

95. Ward S, Weatherley BC. Pharmacokinetics of atracurium and its metabolites. Br J Anaesth. 1986;58(suppl 1):6S–10S.

96. Parker CJ, Hunter JM. Pharmacokinetics of atracurium and laudanosine in patients with hepatic cirrhosis. Br J Anaesth. 1989;62: 177–183.

97. Yate PM, Flynn PJ, Arnold RW, et al. Clinical experience and plasma laudanosine concentrations during the infusion of atracurium in the intensive therapy unit. Br J Anaesth. 1987;59:211–217.

98. Fahey MR, Rupp SM, Fisher DM, et al. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of atracurium in patients with and without renal failure. Anesthesiology. 1984;61:699–702.

99. Ward S, Boheimer N, Weatherley BC, et al. Pharmacokinetics of atracurium and its metabolites in patients with normal renal function, and in patients in renal failure. Br J Anaesth. 1987;59:697–706.

100. Zhang J, Haddad GG, Xia Y. delta-, but not mu- and kappa-, opioid receptor activation protects neocortical neurons from glutamate-induced excitotoxic injury. Brain Res. 2000;885:143–153.

101. Belluardo N, Mudo G, Blum M, et al. Central nicotinic receptors, neurotrophic factors and neuroprotection. Behav Brain Res. 2000; 113:21–34.

102. Tassonyi E, Fathi M, Hughes GJ, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of atracurium, laudanosine and vecuronium following clinical subarachnoid hemorrhage. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002;46:1236–1241.

103. Fodale V, Pratico C, Signer MR, et al. Perinatal neuroprotection by muscle relaxants against hypoxic-ischemic lesions: is it a possible hypothesis? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;18:133–136.

104. Welch RM, Brown A, Ravitch J, et al. The in vitro degradation of cisatracurium, the R, cis-R’-isomer of atracurium, in human and rat plasma. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995;58:132–142.

105. Lien CA, Schmith VD, Belmont MR, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cisatracurium in patients receiving nitrous oxide/opioid/barbiturate anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1996;84:300–308.

106. Kisor DF, Schmith VD, Wargin WA, et al. Importance of the organ-independent elimination of cisatracurium. Anesth Analg. 1996;83:1065–1071.

107. Ornstein E, Lien CA, Matteo RS, et al. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of cisatracurium in geriatric surgical patients. Anesthesiology. 1996;84:520–525.

108. Wastila WB, Maehr RB, Turner GL, et al. Comparative pharmacology of cisatracurium (51W89), atracurium, and five isomers in cats. Anesthesiology. 1996;85:169–177.

109. Lien CA, Belmont MR, Abalos A, et al. The cardiovascular effects and histamine-releasing properties of 51W89 in patients receiving nitrous oxide/opioid/barbiturate anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1995;82:1131–1138.

110. Savarese JJ, Wastila WB. The future of the benzylisoquinolinium relaxants. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl. 1995;106:91–93.

111. Savarese JJ, Ali HH, Basta SJ, et al. The clinical neuromuscular pharmacology of mivacurium chloride (BW B1090U). A short-acting nondepolarizing ester neuromuscular blocking drug. Anesthesiology. 1988;68:723–732.

112. Head-Rapson AG, Devlin JC, Parker CJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics of the three isomers of mivacurium and pharmacodynamics of the chiral mixture in hepatic cirrhosis. Br J Anaesth. 1994;73: 613–618.

113. Naguib M, Samarkandi AH, Bakhamees HS, et al. Histamine-release haemodynamic changes produced by rocuronium, vecuronium, mivacurium, atracurium and tubocurarine. Br J Anaesth. 1995;75:388–392.

114. Buckett WR, Hewett CL, Savage DS. Pancuronium bromide and other steroidal neuromuscular blocking agents containing acetylcholine fragments. J Med Chem. 1973;16:1116–1124.

115. Durant NN, Marshall IG, Savage DS, et al. The neuromuscular and autonomic blocking activities of pancuronium, Org NC 45, and other pancuronium analogues, in the cat. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1979;31:831–836.

116. Stovner J, Oftedal N, Holmboe J. The inhibition of cholinesterases by pancuronium. Br J Anaesth. 1975;47:949–954.

117. Agoston S, Vermeer GA, Kertsten UW, et al. The fate of pancuronium bromide in man. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1973;17: 267–275.

118. Miller RD, Agoston S, Booij LH, et al. The comparative potency and pharmacokinetics of pancuronium and its metabolites in anesthetized man. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1978;207:539–543.

119. Savage DS, Sleigh T, Carlyle I. The emergence of ORG NC 45, 1- [2 beta,3 alpha,5 alpha,16 beta,17 beta)-3, 17-bis(acetyloxy)-2- (1-piperidinyl)-androstan-16-yl]-1-methylpiperidinium bromide, from the pancuronium series. Br J Anaesth. 1980;52(suppl 1):3S–9S.

120. Hill SA, Scott RPF, Savarese JJ. Structure-activity relationships: from tubocurarine to the present day. Bailliere’s Clin Anesthesiol 1994;8:317–348.

121. Lebrault C, Berger JL, D’Hollander AA, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vecuronium (ORG NC 45) in patients with cirrhosis. Anesthesiology. 1985;62:601–605.

122. Fahey MR, Morris RB, Miller RD, et al. Pharmacokinetics of Org NC45 (norcuron) in patients with and without renal failure. Br J Anaesth. 1981;53:1049–1053.

123. Bencini AF, Scaf AH, Sohn YJ, et al. Disposition and urinary excretion of vecuronium bromide in anesthetized patients with normal renal function or renal failure. Anesth Analg. 1986;65:245–251.

124. Wright PM, Hart P, Lau M, et al. Cumulative characteristics of atracurium and vecuronium. A simultaneous clinical and pharmacokinetic study. Anesthesiology. 1994;81:59–68.

125. Wierda JM, Proost JH. Structure-pharmacodynamic-pharmacokinetic relationships of steroidal neuromuscular blocking agents. Eur J Anaesthesiol Suppl. 1995;11:45–54.

126. Naguib M, Samarkandi AH, Bakhamees HS, et al. Comparative potency of steroidal neuromuscular blocking drugs and isobolographic analysis of the interaction between rocuronium and other aminosteroids. Br J Anaesth. 1995;75:37–42.

127. Smit JW, Duin E, Steen H, et al. Interactions between P-glycoprotein substrates and other cationic drugs at the hepatic excretory level. Br J Pharmacol. 1998;123:361–370.

128. Khuenl-Brady K, Castagnoli KP, Canfell PC, et al. The neuromuscular blocking effects and pharmacokinetics of ORG 9426 and ORG 9616 in the cat. Anesthesiology. 1990;72:669–674.

129. Szenohradszky J, Fisher DM, Segredo V, et al. Pharmacokinetics of rocuronium bromide (ORG 9426) in patients with normal renal function or patients undergoing cadaver renal transplantation. Anesthesiology. 1992;899–904.

130. Savarese JJ, Belmont MR, Kraus K, et al. AV002: a promising cysteine-reversible intermediate duration neuromuscular blocker in rhesus monkeys. In: ASA Meeting. San Francisco, CA: American Society of Anesthesiologists; 2007. A986.

131. Sunaga H, Malhotora JK, Savarese JJ, et al. Dose response relationship for cysteine reversal of the novel muscle relaxant AV002 in dogs. In: ASA Annual Meeting. Orlando, FL: American Society of Anesthesiologists; 2008. A364.

132. Donlon JV Jr, Ali HH, Savarese JJ. A new approach to the study of four nondepolarizing relaxants in man. Anesth Analg. 1974;53:934–939.

133. Kopman AF, Lien CA, Naguib M. Determining the potency of neuromuscular blockers: are traditional methods flawed? Br J Anaesth. 2010;104:705–710.

134. Saitoh Y, Toyooka H, Amaha K. Recoveries of post-tetanic twitch and train-of-four responses after administration of vecuronium with different inhalation anaesthetics and neuroleptanaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 1993;70:402–404.

135. Miller RD, Way WL, Dolan WM, et al. The dependence of pancuronium- and d-tubocurarine-induced neuromuscular blockades on alveolar concentrations of halothane and forane. Anesthesiology. 1972;37:573–581.

136. Miller RD, Crique M, Eger EI II. Duration of halothane anesthesia and neuromuscular blockade with d-tubocurarine. Anesthesiology. 1976;44:206–210.

137. Kelly RE, Lien CA, Savarese JJ, et al. Depression of neuromuscular function in a patient during desflurane anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:868–871.

138. Rupp SM, Miller RD, Gencarelli PJ. Vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade during enflurane, isoflurane, and halothane anesthesia in humans. Anesthesiology. 1984;60:102–105.

139. Gencarelli PJ, Miller RD, Eger EI II, et al. Decreasing enflurane concentrations and d-tubocurarine neuromuscular blockade. Anesthesiology. 1982;56:192–194.

140. Miller RD, Way WL, Dolan WM, et al. Comparative neuromuscular effects of pancuronium, gallamine, and succinylcholine during forane and halothane anesthesia in man. Anesthesiology. 1971;35:509–514.

141. Wulf H, Ledowski T, Linstedt U, et al. Neuromuscular blocking effects of rocuronium during desflurane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane anaesthesia. Can J Anaesth. 1998;45:526–532.

142. Bock M, Klippel K, Nitsche B, et al. Rocuronium potency and recovery characteristics during steady-state desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:43–47.

143. Pereon Y, Bernard JM, Nguyen The Tich S, et al. The effects of desflurane on the nervous system: from spinal cord to muscles. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:490–495.

144. Franks NP, Lieb WR. Molecular and cellular mechanisms of general anaesthesia. Nature. 1994;367:607–614.

145. Paul M, Fokt RM, Kindler CH, et al. Characterization of the interactions between volatile anesthetics and neuromuscular blockers at the muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:362–367.

146. Singh YN, Harvey AL, Marshall IG. Antibiotic-induced paralysis of the mouse phrenic nerve-hemidiaphragm preparation, and reversibility by calcium and by neostigmine. Anesthesiology. 1978;48:418–424.

147. Heier T, Caldwell JE, Sessler DI, et al. Mild intraoperative hypothermia increases duration of action and spontaneous recovery of vecuronium blockade during nitrous oxide-isoflurane anesthesia in humans. Anesthesiology. 1991;74:815–819.

148. Leslie K, Sessler DI, Bjorksten AR, et al. Mild hypothermia alters propofol pharmacokinetics and increases the duration of action of atracurium. Anesth Analg. 1995;80:1007–1014.

149. Caldwell JE, Heier T, Wright PM, et al. Temperature-dependent pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vecuronium. Anesthesiology. 2000;92:84–93.

150. Sinatra RS, Philip BK, Naulty JS, et al. Prolonged neuromuscular blockade with vecuronium in a patient treated with magnesium sulfate. Anesth Analg. 1985;64:1220–1222.

151. Usubiaga JE, Wikinski JA, Morales RL, et al. Interaction of intravenously administered procaine, lidocaine, and succinylcholine in anesthetized subjects. Anesth Analg. 1967;46:39–45.

152. Miller RD, Way WL, Katzung BG. The potentiation of neuromuscular blocking agents by quinidine. Anesthesiology. 1967;28: 1036–1041.

153. Alloul K, Whalley DG, Shutway F, et al. Pharmacokinetic origin of carbamazepine-induced resistance to vecuronium neuromuscular blockade in anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology. 1996;84:330–339.

154. Kim CS, Arnold FJ, Itani MS, et al. Decreased sensitivity to metocurine during long-term phenytoin therapy may be attributable to protein binding and acetylcholine receptor changes. Anesthesiology. 1992;77:500–506.

155. Al-Mohaya S, Naguib M, Abdelatif M, et al. Abnormal responses to muscle relaxants in a patient with primary hyperparathyroidism. Anesthesiology. 1986;65:554–556.

156. Waud BE, Waud DR. Interaction of calcium and potassium with neuromuscular blocking agents. Br J Anaesth. 1980; 52:863–866.

157. Bowman WC, Rodger IW, Houston J, et al. Structure:action relationships among some desacetoxy analogues of pancuronium and vecuronium in the anesthetized cat. Anesthesiology. 1988;69:57–62.

158. Kopman AF, Klewicka MM, Kopman DJ, et al. Molar potency is predictive of the speed of onset of neuromuscular block for agents of intermediate, short, and ultrashort duration. Anesthesiology. 1999;90:425–431.

159. Kopman AF, Klewicka MM, Neuman GG. Molar potency is not predictive of the speed of onset of atracurium. Anesth Analg. 1999; 89:1046–1049.

160. Naguib M, Kopman AF. Low dose rocuronium for tracheal intubation. Middle East J Anesthesiol. 2003;17:193–204.

161. Adams PR. Drug interactions at the motor endplate. Pflugers Arch. 1975;360:155–164.

162. Donati F, Meistelman C. A kinetic-dynamic model to explain the relationship between high potency and slow onset time for neuromuscular blocking drugs. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1991; 19:537–552.

163. Donati F. Onset of neuromuscular blockade: more than just the time to get there. Anesth Analg. 2013;117:757–759.

164. Bevan DR. The new relaxants: are they worth it? Can J Anaesth. 1999;46:R88–R100.

165. Anaesthetists and the reporting of adverse drug reactions. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292:949.

166. Vercruysse P, Bossuyt P, Hanegreefs G, et al. Gallamine and pancuronium inhibit pre- and postjunctional muscarine receptors in canine saphenous veins. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1979;209:225–230.

167. Savarese JJ, Lowenstein E. The name of the game: no anesthesia by cookbook. Anesthesiology. 1985;62:703–705.

168. Domenech JS, Garcia RC, Sastain JM, et al. Pancuronium bromide: an indirect sympathomimetic agent. Br J Anaesth. 1976;48: 1143–1148.

169. Savarese JJ, Ali HH, Basta SJ, et al. The cardiovascular effects of mivacurium chloride (BW B1090U) in patients receiving nitrous oxide-opiate-barbiturate anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1989;70:386–394.

170. Scott RP, Savarese JJ, Basta SJ, et al. Atracurium: clinical strategies for preventing histamine release and attenuating the haemodynamic response. Br J Anaesth. 1985;57:550–553.

171. Moss J, Rosow CE, Savarese JJ, et al. Role of histamine in the hypotensive action of d-tubocurarine in humans. Anesthesiology. 1981;55:19–25.

172. Basta SJ, Savarese JJ, Ali HH, et al. Histamine-releasing potencies of atracurium, dimethyl tubocurarine and tubocurarine. Br J Anaesth. 1983;55(suppl 1):105S–106S.

173. Naguib M, Abdulatif M, Absood A. Comparative effects of pipecuronium and tubocurarine on plasma concentrations of histamine in humans. Br J Anaesth. 1991;67:320–322.

174. Cannon JE, Fahey MR, Moss J, et al. Large doses of vecuronium and plasma histamine concentrations. Can J Anaesth. 1988;35: 350–353.

175. Levy JH, Davis GK, Duggan J, et al. Determination of the hemodynamics and histamine release of rocuronium (Org 9426) when administered in increased doses under N2O/O2-sufentanil anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1994;78:318–321.

176. Moss J, Rosow CE. Histamine release by narcotics and muscle relaxants in humans. Anesthesiology. 1983;59:330–339.

177. Flacke W, Gillis RA. Impulse transmission via nicotinic and muscarinic pathways in the stellate ganglion of the dog. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1968;163:266–276.

178. Basta SJ. Modulation of histamine release by neuromuscular blocking drugs. Curr Opinion Anaesth. 1992;5:572.

179. Laxenaire MC, Moneret-Vautrin DA, Widmer S, et al. Anesthetics responsible for anaphylactic shock. A French multicenter study [in French]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1990;9:501–506.

180. Fisher MM, More DG. The epidemiology and clinical features of anaphylactic reactions in anaesthesia. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1981;9:226–234.

181. Mertes PM, Laxenaire MC, Alla F. Anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions occurring during anesthesia in France in 1999-2000. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:536–545.

182. Baldo BA, Fisher MM. Substituted ammonium ions as allergenic determinants in drug allergy. Nature. 1983;306:262–264.

183. Mertes PM, Moneret-Vautrin DA, Leynadier F, et al. Skin reactions to intradermal neuromuscular blocking agent injections: a randomized multicenter trial in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2007;107:245–252.

184. Cresnar B, Crne-Finderle N, Breskvar K, et al. Neural regulation of muscle acetylcholinesterase is exerted on the level of its mRNA. J Neurosci Res. 1994;38:294–299.

185. Beemer GH, Goonetilleke PH, Bjorksten AR. The maximum depth of an atracurium neuromuscular block antagonized by edrophonium to effect adequate recovery. Anesthesiology. 1995;82:852–858.

186. Payne JP, Hughes R, Al Azawi S. Neuromuscular blockade by neostigmine in anaesthetized man. Br J Anaesth. 1980;52:69–76.

187. Naguib M, Kopman AF, Ensor JE. Neuromuscular monitoring and postoperative residual curarisation: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98:302–316.

188. Naguib M, Lien CA. Pharmacology of muscle relaxants and their antagonists. In: Miller RD, Fleisher LA, Johns RA, et al, eds. Miller’s Anesthesia. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2005:481–572.

189. Bevan DR, Donati F, Kopman AF. Reversal of neuromuscular blockade. Anesthesiology. 1992;77:785–805.

190. Brull SJ, Kopman AF, Naguib M. Management principles to reduce the risk of residual neuromuscular blockade. Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2013;3:130–138.

191. Magorian TT, Lynam DP, Caldwell JE, et al. Can early administration of neostigmine, in single or repeated doses, alter the course of neuromuscular recovery from a vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade? Anesthesiology. 1990;73:410–414.

192. Cronnelly R. Muscle relaxant antagonists. Semin Anesth. 1985;4:31.

193. Rupp SM, McChristian JW, Miller RD, et al. Neostigmine and edrophonium antagonism of varying intensity neuromuscular blockade induced by atracurium, pancuronium, or vecuronium. Anesthesiology. 1986;64:711–717.

194. Engbaek J, Ording H, Ostergaard D, et al. Edrophonium and neostigmine for reversal of the neuromuscular blocking effect of vecuronium. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1985;29:544–546.

195. Fisher DM, Cronnelly R, Sharma M, et al. Clinical pharmacology of edrophonium in infants and children. Anesthesiology. 1984;61:428–433.

196. McCarthy GJ, Cooper R, Stanley JC, et al. Dose-response relationships for neostigmine antagonism of vecuronium-induced neuromuscular block in adults and the elderly. Br J Anaesth. 1992;69:281–283.

197. Naguib M, Abdulatif M, al-Ghamdi A. Dose-response relationships for edrophonium and neostigmine antagonism of rocuronium bromide (ORG 9426)-induced neuromuscular blockade. Anesthesiology. 1993;79:739–745.

198. Naguib M, Riad W. Dose-response relationships for edrophonium and neostigmine antagonism of atracurium and cisatracurium-induced neuromuscular block. Can J Anaesth. 2000;47: 1074–1081.

199. Suresh D, Carter JA, Whitehead JP, et al. Cardiovascular changes at antagonism of atracurium. Effects of different doses of premixed neostigmine and glycopyrronium in a ratio of 5:1. Anaesthesia. 1991;46:877–880.

200. Morris RB, Cronnelly R, Miller RD, et al. Pharmacokinetics of edrophonium in anephric and renal transplant patients. Br J Anaesth. 1981;53:1311–1314.

201. Cronnelly R, Stanski DR, Miller RD, et al. Renal function and the pharmacokinetics of neostigmine in anesthetized man. Anesthesiology. 1979;51:222–226.

202. Cronnelly R, Stanski DR, Miller RD, et al. Pyridostigmine kinetics with and without renal function. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1980;28: 78–81.

203. Cronnelly R, Morris RB, Miller RD. Edrophonium: duration of action and atropine requirement in humans during halothane anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1982;57:261–266.

204. Salem MG, Richardson JC, Meadows GA, et al. Comparison between glycopyrrolate and atropine in a mixture with neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. Studies in patients following open heart surgery. Br J Anaesth. 1985;57:184–187.

205. van Vlymen JM, Parlow JL. The effects of reversal of neuromuscular blockade on autonomic control in the perioperative period. Anesth Analg. 1997;84:148–154.

206. Ding Y, Fredman B, White PF. Use of mivacurium during laparoscopic surgery: effect of reversal drugs on postoperative recovery. Anesth Analg. 1994;78:450–454.

207. Cheng C-R, Sessler DI, Apfel CC. Does neostigmine administration produce a clinically important increase in postoperative nausea and vomiting? Anesth Analg. 2005;101:1349–1355.

208. Boeke AJ, de Lange JJ, van Druenen B, et al. Effect of antagonizing residual neuromuscular block by neostigmine and atropine on postoperative vomiting. Br J Anaesth. 1994;72:654–656.

209. Hovorka J, Korttila K, Nelskyla K, et al. Reversal of neuromuscular blockade with neostigmine has no effect on the incidence or severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 1997;85:1359–1361.

210. Hutton P, Burchett KR, Madden AP. Comparison of recovery after neuromuscular blockade by atracurium or pancuronium. Br J Anaesth. 1988;60:36–42.

211. Kopman AF, Yee PS, Neuman GG. Relationship of the train-of-four fade ratio to clinical signs and symptoms of residual paralysis in awake volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1997;86:765–771.

212. Viby-Mogensen J, Jensen NH, Engbaek J, et al. Tactile and visual evaluation of the response to train-of-four nerve stimulation. Anesthesiology. 1985;63:440–443.

213. Dupuis JY, Martin R, Tetrault JP. Clinical, electrical and mechanical correlations during recovery from neuromuscular blockade with vecuronium. Can J Anaesth. 1990;37:192–196.

214. Eriksson LI, Sundman E, Olsson R, et al. Functional assessment of the pharynx at rest and during swallowing in partially paralyzed humans: simultaneous videomanometry and mechanomyography of awake human volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:1035–1043.

215. Sundman E, Witt H, Olsson R, et al. The incidence and mechanisms of pharyngeal and upper esophageal dysfunction in partially paralyzed humans: pharyngeal videoradiography and simultaneous manometry after atracurium. Anesthesiology. 2000;92:977–984.

216. Eriksson LI. The effects of residual neuromuscular blockade and volatile anesthetics on the control of ventilation. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:243–251.

217. Baillard C, Gehan G, Reboul-Marty J, et al. Residual curarization in the recovery room after vecuronium. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84: 394–395.

218. Baillard C, Clec’h C, Catineau J, et al. Postoperative residual neuromuscular block: a survey of management. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95:622–626.

219. Kopman AF, Ng J, Zank LM, et al. Residual postoperative paralysis. Pancuronium versus mivacurium, does it matter? Anesthesiology. 1996;85:1253–1259.

220. Viby-Mogensen J, Jorgensen BC, Ording H. Residual curarization in the recovery room. Anesthesiology. 1979;50:539–541.

221. Debaene B, Plaud B, Dilly MP, et al. Residual paralysis in the PACU after a single intubating dose of nondepolarizing muscle relaxant with an intermediate duration of action. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:1042–1048.

222. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Marymont JH, et al. Residual neuromuscular blockade and critical respiratory events in the postanesthesia care unit. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:130–137.

223. Brull SJ, Naguib M, Miller RD. Residual neuromuscular block: rediscovering the obvious. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:11–4.

224. Naguib M, Brull SJ, Arkes HR. Reasoning of an anomaly: residual block after sugammadex. Anesth Analg. 2013;117:197–300.

225. Sorgenfrei IF, Viby-Mogensen J, Swiatek FA. Does evidence lead to a change in clinical practice? Danish anaesthetists’ and nurse anesthetists’ clinical practice and knowledge of postoperative residual curarization [in Danish]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2005;167:3878–3882.

226. Bartkowski RR. Incomplete reversal of pancuronium neuromuscular blockade by neostigmine, pyridostigmine, and edrophonium. Anesth Analg. 1987;66:594–598.

227. Beemer GH, Bjorksten AR, Dawson PJ, et al. Determinants of the reversal time of competitive neuromuscular block by anticholinesterases. Br J Anaesth. 1991;66:469–475.

228. Naguib M, el-Gammal M, Daoud W, et al. Human plasma cholinesterase for antagonism of prolonged mivacurium-induced neuromuscular blockade. Anesthesiology. 1995;82:1288–1292.

229. Belmont MR, Horochiwsky Z, Eliazo RF, et al. Reversal of AV430A with cysteine in rhesus monkeys. Anesthesiology. 2004;101:A1180.

230. Bom A, Bradley M, Cameron K, et al. A novel concept of reversing neuromuscular block: chemical encapsulation of rocuronium bromide by a cyclodextrin-based synthetic host. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2002;41:266–270.

231. Adam JM, Bennett DJ, Bom A, et al. Cyclodextrin-derived host molecules as reversal agents for the neuromuscular blocker rocuronium bromide: synthesis and structure-activity relationships. J Med Chem. 2002;45:1806–1816.

232. Tarver GJ, Grove SJ, Buchanan K, et al. 2-O-substituted cyclodextrins as reversal agents for the neuromuscular blocker rocuronium bromide. Bioorg Med Chem. 2002;10:1819–1827.

233. Cameron KS, Clark JK, Cooper A, et al. Modified gamma-cyclodextrins and their rocuronium complexes. Org Lett. 2002;4: 3403–3406.

234. Zhang MQ. Drug-specific cyclodextrins: the future of rapid neuromuscular block reversal? Drugs Future. 2003;28:347–354.

235. Gijsenbergh F, Ramael S, Houwing N, et al. First human exposure of Org 25969, a novel agent to reverse the action of rocuronium bromide. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:695–703.

236. Sorgenfrei IF, Norrild K, Larsen PB, et al. Reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block by the selective relaxant binding agent sugammadex: a dose-finding and safety study. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:667–674.

237. Sparr HJ, Vermeyen KM, Beaufort AM, et al. Early reversal of profound rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade by sugammadex in a randomized multicenter study: efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:935–943.

238. Epemolu O, Bom A, Hope F, et al. Reversal of neuromuscular blockade and simultaneous increase in plasma rocuronium concentration after the intravenous infusion of the novel reversal agent Org 25969. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:632–637.

239. Naguib M. Sugammadex: another milestone in clinical neuromuscular pharmacology. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:575–581.

240. Shields M, Giovannelli M, Mirakhur RK, et al. Org 25969 (sugammadex), a selective relaxant binding agent for antagonism of prolonged rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96:36–43.

241. Suy K, Morias K, Cammu G, et al. Effective reversal of moderate rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular block with sugammadex, a selective relaxant binding agent. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:283–288.

242. Groudine SB, Soto R, Lien C, et al. A randomized, dose-finding, phase II study of the selective relaxant binding drug, sugammadex, capable of safely reversing profound rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:555–562.

243. de Boer HD, Driessen JJ, Marcus MA, et al. Reversal of rocuronium-induced (1.2 mg/kg) profound neuromuscular block by sugammadex: a multicenter, dose-finding and safety study. Anesthesiology. 2007;107:239–244.

244. Puhringer FK, Rex C, Sielenkamper AW, et al. Reversal of profound, high-dose rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade by sugammadex at two different time points: an international, multicenter, randomized, dose-finding, safety assessor-blinded, phase II trial. Anesthesiology. 2008;109:188–197.

245. Flockton EA, Mastronardi P, Hunter JM, et al. Reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block with sugammadex is faster than reversal of cisatracurium-induced block with neostigmine. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:622–630.

246. Naguib M. Sugammadex may replace best clinical practice: a misconception. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:1506-a–1507-a.

247. Eleveld DJ, Kuizenga K, Proost JH, et al. A temporary decrease in twitch response during reversal of rocuronium-induced muscle relaxation with a small dose of sugammadex. Anesth Analg. 2007; 104:582–584.

248. de Boer HD, van Egmond J, van de Pol F, et al. Sugammadex, a new reversal agent for neuromuscular block induced by rocuronium in the anaesthetized Rhesus monkey. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96: 473–479.

249. Head-Rapson AG, Devlin JC, Parker CJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the three isomers of mivacurium in health, in end-stage renal failure and in patients with impaired renal function. Br J Anaesth. 1995;75:31–36.

250. Vandenbrom RH, Wierda JM, Agoston S. Pharmacokinetics and neuromuscular blocking effects of atracurium besylate and two of its metabolites in patients with normal and impaired renal function. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1990;19:230–240.

251. Lynam DP, Cronnelly R, Castagnoli KP, et al. The pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of vecuronium in patients anesthetized with isoflurane with normal renal function or with renal failure. Anesthesiology. 1988;69:227–231.

252. Sheiner LB, Stanski DR, Vozeh S, et al. Simultaneous modeling of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: application to d-­tubocurarine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979;25:358–371.

253. Somogyi AA, Shanks CA, Triggs EJ. The effect of renal failure on the disposition and neuromuscular blocking action of pancuronium bromide. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1977;12:23–29.