Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular block in paediatric patients

  1. Lei Yang1,
  2. Di Yang1,
  3. Qian Li1,
  4. Yunxia Zuo1,*,
  5. DongHao Lu2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Anaesthesia Group

Published Online: 5 MAY 2014

Assessed as up-to-date: 18 AUG 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010110.pub2


How to Cite

Yang L, Yang D, Li Q, Zuo Y, Lu D. Neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular block in paediatric patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD010110. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010110.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Department of Anaesthesiology, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

  2. 2

    Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stockholm, Sweden

*Yunxia Zuo, Department of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China. zuoyunxiahxa@qq.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 5 MAY 2014

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
 

Description of the condition

Residual neuromuscular block refers to symptoms and signs such as muscle paralysis, apnoea and hypoxia in the postoperative period that are related to the administration of muscle relaxants during a surgical procedure. It is important for patient safety to assess residual muscle paralysis in the correct manner. Traditional methods used to evaluate recovery of neuromuscular function include head lift, hand grip and respiratory function. Moreover, anaesthesiologists often use train-of-four (TOF) monitoring to assess residual muscle paralysis. Residual neuromuscular block has been defined as a TOF ratio < 0.7, but recently the value was changed to 0.9 (Murphy 2010). Although patients may have satisfactory recovery of muscle strength with a TOF ratio > 0.9 (Eriksson 1997; Kopman 1997), obvious muscle weakness may be present in some patients. Therefore, a residual neuromuscular block assessment requires not only TOF monitoring but also clinical observation (Murphy 2010).

The incidence of residual neuromuscular block in adults varies from 2% to 64% in different clinical trials owing to different muscle relaxants and different definitions (Murphy 2010). According to Bevan's study (Bevan 1996), which used mivacurium and defined residual neuromuscular block as TOF ratio < 0.7, no residual blockade was found in all children regardless of whether the blockade was reversed. This study showed that the incidence of residual neuromuscular blockade is different between adults and children, and that it may be associated with metabolic alterations. Therefore, it is unclear how frequently residual blockade occurs or whether a routine reversal is necessary in children.

 

Description of the intervention

Neostigmine is a reversible acetylcholinesterase inhibitor; its distribution and elimination half-lives are 3.4 and 77 minutes, respectively (Miller 2009). The elimination half-life in children is shorter than in adults (Fisher 1983). Neostigmine is usually used to reverse the effects of non-depolarizing muscle relaxants at the end of an operation. It takes a shorter time to reverse the blockade in infants than in children or adolescents (Kirkegaard-Nielsen 1995). Larger doses of neostigmine reverse the blockade more rapidly and completely than smaller doses. However, it has a maximum effective dosage, and administering additional neostigmine will not produce further reversal. The maximum effective dose is in the range of 0.06 to 0.08 mg/kg, and the recommended dose for blockade reversal in paediatric patients is 0.02 to 0.06 mg/kg when combined with 0.02 mg/kg atropine (Miller 2009).

Drugs such as quinidine and aminoglycoside may interfere with neuromuscular transmission and could decrease the efficacy of neostigmine. Increased acetylcholine resulting from neostigmine administration stimulates both nicotinic and muscarinic receptors. Adverse effects of neostigmine are associated with overstimulation of cholinergic nerves and include bradycardia, salivation, nausea and vomiting. In the worst cases, arrhythmia and bronchospasm can also occur (Hunter 2006).

 

How the intervention might work

Acetylcholinesterase contains two sites of action. One is an anionic site, which attracts acetylcholine (ACh). The other is an esteratic site, which combines with ACh and hydrolyzes it rapidly to deactivate it. Neostigmine occupies both sites of acetylcholinesterase and thus prevents it from binding to and hydrolyzing ACh (Caldwell 2009). Consequently, the amount of ACh in the synaptic cleft increases. The increased ACh is in competition with the non-depolarizing agents to reverse the neuromuscular block. However, neostigmine has a ceiling effect. When neostigmine inhibits all the acetylcholinesterase, giving further neostigmine has no clinical effects on reversal. In addition, both the antagonism induced by neostigmine and the natural decrease in the muscle relaxant concentration contribute to recovery of neuromuscular function when neostigmine is administered.

 

Why it is important to do this review

Muscle relaxants are commonly used for endotracheal intubation or for maintenance of muscle paralysis during surgery in children (Meretoja 2010). Residual neuromuscular block may cause serious respiratory complications, such as hypoxia (low oxygen content), during the postoperative period. Residual blockade may have greater influence in children because of their limited respiratory reserve capacity. So it is important for anaesthesiologists to ensure that no residual paralysis is present in such children during the postoperative period. For infants and neonates, most of the traditional methods (such as head lift, hand grip and so on) used to assess residual neuromuscular blockade are impractical because co-operation is lacking. One study (Meretoja 1990) showed that the average TOF ratio was only 0.5 at the time of extubation if recovery was assessed by clinical criteria. It seems that we should assess neuromuscular blockade in children by using the TOF monitor, but, unfortunately, most anaesthesiologists do not use a neuromuscular monitor in their daily work (Naguib 2010). Therefore, it has been recommended to use neostigmine with atropine to reverse neuromuscular blockade in all neonates and small infants, even if they have shown clinical signs of recovery (Miller 2009). However, some disagree because researchers have indicated that spontaneous and induced recovery from neuromuscular block may be faster in children than in adults (Goudsouzian 1984; Meakin 1983). Sometimes anaesthesiologists administer muscle relaxants just for the purpose of achieving endotracheal intubation. Therefore, it may be unnecessary to reverse neuromuscular blockade in every paediatric patient at the end of surgery. Furthermore, large doses of neostigmine may not reverse the blockade but may prolong muscle weakness (Bevan 1992), and salivation or bradycardia may be induced after neostigmine is used. Whether we should routinely use neostigmine in paediatric patients at the end of an operation to reverse neuromuscular blockade is an important question for paediatric anaesthesiologists.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review

To assess the necessity of routine usage of neostigmine in preventing residual neuromuscular blockade in paediatric patients following the use of muscle relaxants.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared neostigmine versus placebo, irrespective of language and publication status.

 

Types of participants

We planned to include American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I or II paediatric patients (younger than 12 years of age, including newborns) who had received non-depolarizing muscle relaxants when undergoing any kind of operation.

We planned to exclude individuals with a known history of neuromuscular disease, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, hepatic disease or drug abuse and those who had recently taken medication affecting neuromuscular transmission. We also planned to exclude premature babies.

 

Types of interventions

Paediatric participants who were administered neostigmine at the end of surgery to reverse neuromuscular blockade constituted the intervention group.

Paediatric participants who were administered placebo at the end of surgery constituted the control group.

We intended to compare the intervention group versus the control group.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

  1. Mortality of children in the postoperative period.
  2. Risk of assisted ventilation (including mask ventilation, laryngeal mask airway and intubation) after extubation.

 

Secondary outcomes

  1. Risk of drug-related adverse effects: bradycardia, heart rate < 60 per minute; excessive salivation; emesis.
  2. Risk of postoperative residual neuromuscular block: We defined residual neuromuscular block as TOF ratio < 0.9 using acceleromyography (mechanomyography or electromyography).
  3. Time between neostigmine or placebo administration and TOF ratio recovery to 0.9.
  4. Risk of hypoxia (partial pressure of arterial oxygen < 60 mmHg or oxygen saturation (SpO2) < 90%) after extubation.
  5. Length of stay in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU).

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 8, part of The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to August 2013); and EMBASE via Ovid SP (1974 to August 2013).

We combined free-text terms and subject headings when searching CENTRAL (for our detailed search strategy, see Appendix 1).

We used the sensitive strategies described in Section 6.4 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) to search for RCTs in MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid. We combined the exploded Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms (or EMTREE terms) and associated free-text terms with the RCT sensitive search strategy (for detailed search strategies, see Appendix 2 and Appendix 3).

We applied no language restrictions to the search strategy.

 

Searching other resources

We searched for ongoing trials in the following databases: ClinicalTrials.gov (18 August 2013) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (18 August 2013).

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Two review authors (LY and DY) independently screened all studies for eligibility based on their titles, abstracts and keywords (see Appendix 4 for a copy of the Study Selection Form). We resolved disagreements by consulting with a third review author (QL). We retrieved full-text copies of all not to be excluded papers for further assessment. We contacted the first author of these papers to ask for non-reported information.

We planned to list all eligible trials on a form (see Appendix 5 for a copy of the Eligible Trials Form).

 

Data extraction and management

Two review authors (LY and DY) independently extracted data onto a paper form (see Appendix 6 for a copy of the Data Extraction Form). We resolved disagreements by discussion. DY planned to enter data into a RevMan file, and LY planned to check the accuracy of the data entry.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors (LY and DY) planned to independently assess the methodological quality of included papers. We planned to resolve disagreements by discussion with a third review author (QL).

We planned to perform risk of bias assessment using the 'Risk of bias' tool described in Chapter 8 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). A copy of the form that we planned to use to do this will be found in Appendix 7. We planned to assess each trial according to the quality domains of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and any other potential threats to validity.

We intended to consider a trial as having low risk of bias if all domains were assessed as low risk. We intended to consider a trial as having high risk of bias if one or more domains were assessed as high or unclear risk.

We planned to report the 'Risk of bias' table as part of the 'Table of characteristics of included studies' and to present a 'Risk of bias summary' figure, which would detail all judgements made for all included studies in the review.

 

Measures of treatment effect

We planned to present dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs. In the case of outcomes with continuous data in different scales, we planned to use standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs.

 

Unit of analysis issues

All comparisons were intended to be based on individual trial participants.

 

Dealing with missing data

We planned to contact the first author to request missing data. We planned to include in the review any relevant information obtained in this way.

We planned to perform both available case analysis and intention-to-treat analysis. We intended to compare these results in a sensitivity analysis.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

We planned to assess clinical diversity (e.g. different types of muscle relaxants, length of surgery, age of children) and methodological diversity (risk of bias assessment). If they were similar enough, we intended to pool the data in a meta-analysis. Then we intended to assess statistical significance with a P value < 0.1. We also intended to calculate the I2 statistic to assess the impact of heterogeneity on the meta-analysis. We considered heterogeneity to be substantial if the value of the I2 statistic was greater than 50%. If substantial heterogeneity (I2 > 50%) was found in the results, we intended to explore possible sources of heterogeneity using the sensitivity and subgroup analyses described below.

 

Assessment of reporting biases

We planned to assess publication bias by using funnel plots if more than 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis (Egger 1997).

 

Data synthesis

If heterogeneity was not substantial, we intended to combine all trial results. We planned to use RevMan 5.1 to perform the analysis along with a random-effects model.

  1. For dichotomous data, we planned to use Mantel-Haenszel methods.
  2. For continuous data, we planned to use MDs if all outcomes used the same scale; otherwise we planned to use SMDs.

If heterogeneity was considerable, we intended to refrain from combining any results. We planned to perform a descriptive analysis.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We planned to perform the following subgroup analyses for different interventions and participants.

  1. Different definitions of residual neuromuscular block.
  2. Types of muscle relaxants.
  3. Length of surgery greater than one hour.
  4. Different age groups (neonates younger than 28 days, younger than one year old, one to three years and older than three years).
  5. Different races.
  6. Neuromuscular monitoring (quantitative or qualitative means or not).

 

Sensitivity analysis

We planned to reanalyse the data using different statistical approaches (random-effects model or fixed-effect model). We planned to approach missing data using different imputation methods (best case, worst case; last observation carried forward).

 

Summary of findings    [Explanations]

We planned to use the principles of the GRADE system in the review (Guyatt 2008) to assess the quality of the body of evidence associated with specific outcomes (mortality of children in postoperative period; risk of assisted ventilation after extubation; risk of drug-related adverse effects (bradycardia, excessive salivation, vomiting)) and to construct the 'Summary of findings' (SoF) table using the GRADE software. The GRADE approach is used to appraise the quality of a body of evidence based on the extent to which one can be confident that an estimate of effect or association reflects the item being assessed. The quality of a body of evidence considers within-study risk of bias (methodological quality), directness of the evidence, heterogeneity of the data, precision of effect estimates and risk of publication bias.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
 

Description of studies

See Characteristics of included studies, Characteristics of excluded studies and Characteristics of studies awaiting classification.

 

Results of the search

We found 387 records using our search strategy and 12 records via other sources. A total of 343 records remained after we removed duplicates. We screened all titles, abstracts and keywords for eligibility and excluded all but three studies. We retrieved the three possible studies in full text for further assessment. Of those three studies, we excluded two (Baxter 1991; Neidhar 1996) and placed one study (Watcha 1995) in awaiting classification (see Figure 1). We tried to contact the lead author (Watcha 1995) via email, as we needed more information for the review. We also tried to contact the study author through the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group; however no response was received from the lead author.

 FigureFigure 1. Flow diagram.

 

Included studies

No eligible studies were identified (see Characteristics of studies awaiting classification).

 

Excluded studies

We excluded two studies after reading the full papers (Baxter 1991; Neidhar 1996). The reasons for exclusion are documented in the Characteristics of excluded studies.

 

Risk of bias in included studies

We planned to report mortality and risk of assisted ventilation as primary outcomes, and risk of residual neuromuscular block, risk of adverse effects, time for recovery, risk of hypoxia and length of stay in the PACU as secondary outcomes. But unfortunately, no eligible studies were identified.

 

Allocation

No eligible studies were identified.

 

Blinding

No eligible studies were identified.

 

Incomplete outcome data

No eligible studies were identified.

 

Selective reporting

No eligible studies were identified.

 

Other potential sources of bias

No eligible studies were identified.

 

Effects of interventions

No eligible studies were identified.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
 

Summary of main results

We found no RCTs comparing neostigmine versus placebo in paediatric participants. So far, no RCT has reported benefit from the routine administration of neostigmine in each child at the end of surgery. One study, which is awaiting classification (Watcha 1995), reported that neostigmine increased the risk of emesis over placebo. However, some participants in that study were probably older than 12 years of age (our inclusion criterion was younger than 12 years of age). We tried to contact the lead author of that study to obtain the information needed but failed. Therefore, we have found no evidence that directly addresses our research question and that would enable us to determine the effects of routine usage of neostigmine in paediatric participants following the use of muscle relaxants.

 

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

To better illuminate the influence of routine use of neostigmine on important clinical outcomes, we used patient-relevant, non-surrogate measurable outcomes as primary outcomes. But unfortunately, the participants included in most of the studies were not children. Therefore, even though we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry without language restrictions, we found no relevant evidence.

 

Quality of the evidence

We found no relevant evidence.

 

Potential biases in the review process

We found no relevant evidence.

 

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

We found no relevant evidence.

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review

 

Implications for practice

No RCTs were found to support, or argue against, the routine use of neostigmine to reverse neuromuscular block in paediatric patients.

 
Implications for research

Randomized controlled trials are required to assess the necessity of routine usage of neostigmine in preventing residual neuromuscular blockade in paediatric patients following the use of muscle relaxants. So far, few studies have been concerned about the issue. In future clinical trials, the following need to be considered.

  1. Risk of residual neuromuscular block in paediatric participants.
  2. Adverse effects of neostigmine as antagonists to muscle relaxants in paediatric participants.
  3. Time when administering neostigmine with or without neuromuscular monitor.
  4. Types of muscle relaxants (such as long-time and short-time drugs).
  5. Different ages of participants (such as neonates, infants and children).
  6. Neuromuscular monitoring (quantitative or qualitative means or not).

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review

We would like to thank Jane Cracknell (Managing Editor, Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group (CARG)) and Karen Hovhannisyan (Trials Search Co-ordinator, CARG) for their help. We would like to thank Huang Han (West China Second University Hospital) for advice provided. We would like to thank Patrick Brass for helping us identify and extract data from the German paper (Neidhar 1996).

We would like to thank Javier Eslava-Schmalbach (content editor); Jeffrey K Lu, Dominic A Cave and Oliver Karam (peer reviewers); and Robert Wyllie (consumer referee) for help and editorial advice provided during the preparation of this systematic review.

We also would like to thank Wu Taixiang (Professor of Chinese Evidence-Based Medcine Centre) for his help and guidance. We would like to thank Mathew Zacharias (content editor); Nathan Pace (statistical editor); and Dominic Cave, Oliver Karam, Santhanam Suresh, Jeffrey Lu and William Mcilvaine (peer reviewers) for help and editorial advice provided during the preparation of this protocol for the systematic review.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review

This review has no analyses.

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
 

Appendix 1. The Cochrane Library search strategy

#1 synstigmin or prostigmin or prostigmine or vagostigmin or polstigmine or proserine or prozerin or syntostigmine

#2 MeSH descriptor: [Neostigmine] explode all trees

#3 #1 or #2

#4 MeSH descriptor: [Muscle Relaxation] explode all trees

#5 paralysis or residual neuromuscular block

#6 #4 or #5

#7 #3 and #6

 

Appendix 2. MEDLINE (Ovid) search strategy

1. (synstigmin or prostigmin or prostigmine or vagostigmin or polstigmine or proserine or prozerin or syntostigmine).mp. or exp neostigmine
2. exp muscle relaxation/ or paralysis/ or paralysis.mp. or residual neuromuscular block.mp.
3. 1 and 2
4. ((randomized controlled trial or controlled clinical trial).pt. or randomized.ab. or placebo.ab. or drug therapy.fs. or randomly.ab. or trial.ab. or groups.ab.) not (animals not (humans and animals)).sh.
5. 3 and 4

 

Appendix 3. EMBASE (Ovid SP) search strategy

1. exp neostigmine/ or synstigmin.mp. or prostigmin.mp. or prostigmine.mp. or vagostigmin.mp. or polstigmine.mp. or proserine.mp. or prozerin.mp. or syntostigmine.mp. 
2. exp muscle relaxation/ or exp paralysis/ or paralysis.mp. or residual neuromuscular block.mp.
3. 1 and 2
4. (randomized-controlled-trial/ or randomization/ or controlled-study/ or multicenter-study/ or phase-3-clinical-trial/ or phase-4-clinical-trial/ or double-blind-procedure/ or single-blind-procedure/ or (random* or cross?over* or multicenter* or factorial* or placebo* or volunteer*).mp. or ((singl* or doubl* or trebl* or tripl*) adj3 (blind* or mask*)).ti,ab. or (latin adj square).mp.) not (animals not (humans and animals)).sh.
5. 3 and 4

 

Appendix 4. Study selection form

Study selection form


First authorJournal/Conference proceedings etcYear




Study eligibility


RCTRelevant participantsRelevant interventionsRelevant outcomes

Yes/No/UnclearYes/No/UnclearYes/No/UnclearYes/No*/Unclear



*Issue relates to selective reportingwhen authors may have taken measurements for particular outcomes but not reported these within the paper(s). Reviewers should contact trialists for information on possible non-reported outcomes and reasons for exclusion from publication. Study should be listed in 'Studies awaiting assessment' until clarified. If no clarification is received after three attempts, the study should then be excluded.


Do not proceed if any of the above answers is 'No'. If study to be included in 'Excluded studies' section of the review, record below the information to be inserted into 'Table of excluded studies.'





Freehand space for comments on study design and treatment:



 

Appendix 5. Eligible trials form

Eligible trials form


Code each paperAuthor(s)Journal/Conference proceedings etcYear

AThe paper listed above

BFurther papers




 

Appendix 6. Data extraction form

Data extraction form


Participant characteristics

Further details

Age (mean, median, range, etc)

Sex of participants (numbers/%, etc)

Other




Trial characteristics

Further details

Single centre/Multi-centre

Country/Countries

How was participant eligibility defined?

How many people were randomly assigned?

Number of participants in each intervention group/Control group/

Number of participants who received intended treatment

Number of participants who were analysed

Anaesthesia drugs

Dose of neostigmine

Anticholinergic agents/Dose

Dose of placebo

Trial design (e.g. parallel/Cross-over*)

Neuromuscular monitoringQuantitative means/Qualitative means/Not

Other



Data extraction


OutcomesReported in paper (circle)

Primary outcomes

Outcome 1—Mortality of children in postoperative periodYes/No

Outcome 2—Risk of assisted ventilation (including mask ventilation, laryngeal mask airway and intubation) after extubationYes/No

Outcome 3—Risk of drug-related adverse effectsBradycardia/Salivation/Vomiting/Others

Secondary outcomes

Outcome 1—Risk of postoperative residual neuromuscular block: We defined residual neuromuscular block as TOF ratio < 0.9 in acceleromyography (mechanomyography or electromyography)Yes/No

Outcome 2—Time between neostigmine or placebo administration and TOF ratio recovery to 0.9Yes/No

Outcome 3—Risk of hypoxia after extubationYes/No

Outcome 4—Length of stay in PACUYes/No

SubgroupsReported in paper

Definition of residual neuromuscular block

Muscle relaxant

Length of surgery

AgeNeonate/Younger than 3 years old/Older than 3 years old

RaceWhite/Black/Yellow




For continuous data

Code of paperOutcomesUnit of measurementIntervention groupControl groupDetails if outcome only described in text



nMean (SD)nMean (SD)

Time between neostigmine or placebo administration and TOF ratio recovery to 0.9

Length of stay in PACU




For dichotomous data

Code of paperOutcomesIntervention group (n)

n = number of participants, not number of events
Control group (n)

n = number of participants, not number of events

Mortality of children in postoperative period

Risk of assisted ventilation after extubation

Risk of postoperative residual neuromuscular block

Risk of hypoxia after extubation

Risk of drug-related adverse effects (list below, if any are reported)

Bradycardia

Salivation

Vomiting




Other information that you feel is relevant to the results

Indicate whether any data were obtained from the primary author; or whether results were estimated from graphs etc or were calculated by you using a formula (this should be stated and the formula given). In general if results not reported in the paper(s) are obtained, this should be made clear here to be cited in the review.





Freehand space for writing actions such as contact with study authors and changes



References to other trials


Did this report include any references to published reports of potentially eligible trials not already identified for this review?

First authorJournal/Conference Year of publication


Did this report include any references to unpublished data from potentially eligible trials not already identified for this review? If yes, list contact names and details




 

Appendix 7. Risk of bias table

Risk of bias table


Domain JudgementDescription

Random sequence generationLow risk/High risk/UnclearQuote:

Comment:

Allocation concealmentLow risk/High risk/UnclearQuote:

Comment:

Blinding of participants and personnelLow risk/High risk/UnclearQuote:

Comment:

Blinding of outcome assessmentLow risk/High risk/UnclearQuote:

Comment:

Incomplete outcome data Low risk/High risk/UnclearQuote:

Comment:

Selective reportingLow risk/High risk/UnclearQuote:

Comment:

Other sources of biasLow risk/High risk/UnclearQuote:

Comment:



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review

Conceiving of the review: Lei Yang (LY).

Co-ordinating the review: LY.

Undertaking manual searches: LY.

Screening search results: LY, Di Yang (DY).

Organizing retrieval of papers: LY.

Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: LY, DY, Qian Li (QL).

Appraising quality of papers: LY, DY, QL.

Abstracting data from papers: LY, DY.

Writing to authors of papers for additional information: LY.

Providing additional data about papers: LY.

Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: LY.

Managing data for the review: LY, DY.

Entering data into Review Manager (RevMan 5.1): LY, DY.

Handling RevMan statistical data: LY, DongHao Lu (DL).

Performing other statistical analysis not using RevMan: LY, DL.

Performing double entry of data (data entered by person one: LY; data entered by person two: DY).

Interpreting data: LY, DY, QL, Yunxia Zuo (YZ).

Making statistical inferences: LY, DL.

Writing the review: LY, DY, YZ.

Securing funding for the review: DY, LY.

Performing previous work that served as the foundation of the present study: DY, LY.

Serving as guarantor for the review (one author): LY.

Taking responsibility for reading and checking the review before submission: DY.

LY and DY contributed equally to the review.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review

Qian Li and Di Yang took part in a clinical multi-centre study on suggamadex in China, but they have not published any article about this and have received no material aid to attend any meetings on suggamadex.

Lei Yang: none known.

Yunxia Zuo: none known.

DongHao Lu: none known.

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
 

Internal sources

  • None, China.

 

External sources

  • None, China.

 

Differences between protocol and review

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review

We removed the age limit terms from the search strategy shown in the protocol (Yang 2012). The reason for this change is that the age limit can prevent collection of studies in which both adults and children are included. To consider the effect of monitoring devices, we added neuromuscular monitoring to the Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity.

References

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies excluded from this review
  18. References to studies awaiting assessment
  19. Additional references
  20. References to other published versions of this review
Baxter 1991 {published data only}
  • Baxter MR, Bevan JC, Samuel J, Donati F, Bevan DR. Postoperative neuromuscular function in pediatric day-care patients. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1991;72:504-8. [PUBMED: 1672489]
Neidhar 1996 {published data only}
  • Neidhart G, Pabelick C, Kuhn I, Leuwer M, Vettermann J. Influence of halothane, enflurane and isoflurane on the pharmacodynamics of mivacurium in children (German) [EinfluB von Halothan, Enfluran und Isofluran auf die Pharmakodynamik von Mivacurium bei Kindern]. Anasthesiologie Intensivmedizin Notfallmedizin Schmerztherapie 1996;31(5):293-7. [PUBMED: 8767242]

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies excluded from this review
  18. References to studies awaiting assessment
  19. Additional references
  20. References to other published versions of this review
Bevan 1992
Bevan 1996
  • Bevan DR, Kahwaji R, Ansermino JM, Reimer E, Smith MF, O'Connor GA, et al. Residual block after mivacurium with or without edrophonium reversal in adults and children. Anesthesiology 1996;84(2):362-7. [PUBMED: 8602667]
Caldwell 2009
Egger 1997
  • Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 1997;315(7121):1533-7. [MEDLINE: 9432252]
Eriksson 1997
  • Eriksson LI, Sundman E, Olsson R, Nilsson L, Witt H, Ekberg O, 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(5):1035-43. [PUBMED: 9366453]
Fisher 1983
  • Fisher DM, Cronnelly R, Miller RD, Sharma M. The neuromuscular pharmacology of neostigmine in infants and children. Anesthesiology 1983;59(3):220-5. [PUBMED: 6309036]
Goudsouzian 1984
  • Goudsouzian NG, Martyn JJ, Liu LM, Ali HH. The dose response effect of long-acting nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents in children. Canadian Anaesthetists' Society Journal 1984 May;31(3 Pt 1):246-50. [PUBMED: 6722619]
Guyatt 2008
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Hunter 2006
  • Hunter JM, Flockton EA. The doughnut and the hole: a new pharmacological concept for anaesthetists. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2006 Aug;97(2):123-6. [PUBMED: 16831877]
Kirkegaard-Nielsen 1995
  • Kirkegaard-Nielsen H, Meretoja OA, Wirtavuori K. Reversal of atracurium-induced neuromuscular block in paediatric patients. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 1995 Oct;39(7):906-11. [PUBMED: 8848890]
Kopman 1997
  • 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(4):765-71. [PUBMED: 9105219 ]
Meakin 1983
Meretoja 1990
  • Meretoja OA, Gebert R. Postoperative neuromuscular block following atracurium or alcuronium in children. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 1990 Oct;37(7):743-6. [PUBMED: 2171792]
Meretoja 2010
Miller 2009
  • Miller RD. Miller's Anesthesia. 7th Edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, 2009.
Murphy 2010
  • Murphy GS, Brull SJ. Residual neuromuscular block: lessons unlearned. Part I: definitions, incidence, and adverse physiologic effects of residual neuromuscular block. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2010;111(1):120-8. [PUBMED: 20442260]
Naguib 2010
  • Naguib M, Kopman AF, Lien CA, Hunter JM, Lopez A, Brull SJ. A survey of current management of neuromuscular block in the United States and Europe. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2010 Jul;111(1):110-9. [PUBMED: 19910616 ]
RevMan 5.1
  • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.