Background: Sugammadex is a modified gamma-cyclodextrin that acts by selectively encapsulating free aminosteroidal neuromuscular relaxants. Several case reports have been published on the use of sugammadex in patients with neuromuscular disorders that include neuromuscular junction diseases, myopathies, neuropathies, and motor neurone disorders. The primary aim of this review is to systematically review the evidence on the use of sugammadex in patients with this heterogeneous group of diseases and provide recommendations for clinical practice. Methods: A systematic electronic search of Medline, Embase and CINAHL databases was done until June 2019, to identify case reports describing the use of sugammadex in adult surgical patients with neuromuscular disorders. Results: Of the 578 records identified through database searches, 43 articles were finally included for the systematic review. Of these, 17 reports were on patients with myopathy, 15 reports on myasthenia gravis, 9 reports on motor neuron diseases and 2 reports on neuropathies. Conclusions: Majority of the articles reviewed report successful use of sugammadex to reverse steroidal muscle relaxants, especially rocuronium, in patients with neuromuscular diseases. However, with sugammadex, unpredictability in response and uncertainty regarding optimum dose still remain issues. Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring to ensure complete reversal and adequate postoperative monitoring is strongly recommended in these patients, despite the use of sugammadex.

Surgery and obesity are known risk factors for thromboembolic events due to the presence of a hypercoagulable state. Rotational thromboelastometry is a viscoelastic assay that can provide a measure of hypercoagulability via a comprehensive assessment of the coagulation process. This prospective study investigates haemostatic changes over time, presence of hypercoagulability and the association between body mass index and thromboelastometry results in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. Fifty adult patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement surgery had serial thromboelastometry measures performed prior to and following surgery, and on postoperative days 1 and 3. A hypercoagulable state, defined by an ExTEM maximum clot firmness G score ≥11 dyne/cm2, was present in 28% of the patients at baseline. The mean ExTEM maximum clot firmness G score increased by an average of three units from 10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 9–11) dyne/cm2 at baseline to 13 (95% CI 13–14) dyne/cm2 on postoperative day 3, with 85% of patients having a G score ≥11 dyne/cm2. A decrease in ExTEM and InTEM clot formation time and an increase in ExTEM, InTEM and FibTEM clot amplitude at 10 minutes, alpha angle and maximum clot firmness were observed by postoperative day 3 ( P <  0.001). There was no significant difference in the mean thromboelastometry values between patients with a body mass index <35 kg/m2or ≥35 kg/m2. Although a modest association between body mass index and the ExTEM maximum clot firmness G score was observed with exploratory data analysis, further study is required in a large cohort to test the effects of confounders, validate these findings, and determine their clinical importance.

Antenatal fetal monitoring is the principal means of distinguishing the fetus requiring imminent delivery from that which is coping well in utero. The ability to detect fetal compromise, defined by fetal acidosis, in a low-risk population was evaluated in a prospective study of 50 women undergoing a Caesarean section in the absence of labour. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of a modified biophysical profile (BPP) or Doppler velocimetry to detect a fetus subsequently born with an umbilical artery pH of less than 7.20 was poor. The incidence of fetal acidosis in the population under study was 8%. Interpretation of antenatal fetal assessments must be tempered by the clinical features of each case. Decisions to deliver should take into account the low sensitivity of these tests in the absence of other complicating factors.

Neither the Research Foundation, CFA Institute, nor the publication's editorial staff is responsible for facts and opinions presented in this publication. This publication reflects the views of the author(s) and does not represent the official views of the CFA Institute Research Foundation.