Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:21:17.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Suxamethonium administration prolongs the duration of action of subsequent rocuronium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2004

E. N. Robertson ,
J. J. Driessen  and
L. H. D. J. Booij
E. N. Robertson
Affiliation:
University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
J. J. Driessen
Affiliation:
University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
L. H. D. J. Booij
Affiliation:
University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

Summary

Background and aim: Rocuronium may be given to patients for intubation and also after they have received suxamethonium for intubation. The neuromuscular profile of rocuronium given after recovery from suxamethonium may not be identical to that when rocuronium has been given alone. The neuromuscular effects of suxamethonium and rocuronium, and their effects on intraocular pressure (IOP), heart rate (HR) and arterial pressure were also recorded.

Methods: Thirty patients were randomly allocated to receive either 0.6 mg kg−1 rocuronium (n = 15) or 1 mg kg−1 suxamethonium (n = 15) for intubation. Anaesthesia was first induced using propofol 2.5 mg kg−1 and fentanyl 2 μg kg−1 and maintained with propofol 6–12 mg kg−1h−1. The response of the thumb to supramaximal train-of-four (TOF) ulnar nerve stimulation at the wrist was measured using a mechanomyograph. In the suxamethonium group, when the first twitch of the TOF had recovered to 90%, rocuronium 0.6 mg kg−1 was administered. Before administration of relaxant, baseline readings of HR, arterial pressure and IOP were measured until stable, then the appropriate relaxant administered. Thereafter, all readings were repeated at 30, 90, 150, 210 and 270 s. Tracheal intubation was performed 300 s after the intubating dose and all recordings repeated 30 s later. Mechanomyographic monitoring was continued until 70% TOF recovery.

Results: Suxamethonium had a more rapid onset than rocuronium (49 s vs. 74 s, P < 0.0001). The onset time of rocuronium after suxamethonium was significantly reduced (56 s) and the time to recover to a TOF of 70% following rocuronium was increased by previous suxamethonium administration (47 vs. 58 min, P < 0.05). Suxamethonium caused a marked rise in IOP (>30%) and HR (>10%) while rocuronium had little effect on either.

Conclusion: Previous suxamethonium administration decreases the onset time and increases the duration of action of rocuronium. Unlike suxamethonium, rocuronium has few cardiovascular effects and causes little change in IOP.

Keywords

NEUROMUSCULAR AGENTS, rocuronium, suxamethonium, onset, recoveryINTRAOCULAR PRESSUREDRUG INTERACTIONSCARDIOVASCULAR PHYSIOLOGY, heart rate, blood pressure
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 21 , Issue 9 , September 2004 , pp. 734 - 737
Copyright
2004 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Libonati MM, Leahy JJ, Ellison N. The use of succinylcholine in open eye surgery. Anesthesiology 1985; 62: 637–640.Google Scholar
Sparr HJ. Choice of muscle relaxant for rapid-sequence induction. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2001; 18 (Suppl 23): 71–76.Google Scholar
Cadamy AJ, Booth MG. Effect of rocuronium compared with succinylcholine on intraocular pressure. Br J Anaesth 1999; 83: 824–825.Google Scholar
McCourt KC, Salmela L, Mirakhur RK, et al. Comparison of rocuronium and suxamethonium for use during rapid sequence induction of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1998; 53: 867–871.Google Scholar
Huizinga ACT, Vandenbrom RHG, Wierda JMKH, Hommes FDM, Hennis PJ. Intubating conditions and onset of neuromuscular block of rocuronium (Org 9426); a comparison with suxamethonium. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1992; 36: 463–468.Google Scholar
Robertson EN, Hull JM, Verbeek AM, Booij LHDJ. A comparison of rocuronium and vecuronium: the pharmacodynamic, cardiovascular and intra-ocular effects. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1994; 11 (Suppl 9): 116–121.Google Scholar
Mitra S, Gombar KK, Gombar S. The effect of rocuronium on intraocular pressure: a comparison with succinylcholine. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2001; 18: 833–838.Google Scholar
Cooper R, Mirakhur RK, Clarke RSJ, Boules Z. Comparison of intubating conditions after administration of ORG 9426 (Rocuronium) and suxamethonium. Br J Anaesth 1992; 69: 269–273.Google Scholar
Dubois MY, Lea DE, Kataria B, Gadde PL, Tran DQ, Shearrow T. Pharmacodynamics of rocuronium with and without prior administration of succinylcholine. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7: 44–48.Google Scholar
Puhringer FK, Khuenl-Brady KS, Koller J, Mitterschiffaler G. Evaluation of the endotracheal intubating conditions of rocuronium (ORG 9426) and succinylcholine in outpatient surgery. Anesth Analg 1992; 75: 37–40.Google Scholar
Dubois MY, Fleming NW, Lea DE. Effects of succinylcholine on the pharmacodynamics of pipecuronium and pancuronium. Anesth Analg 1992; 72: 364–368.Google Scholar
Caldwell JE. The problem with long acting muscle relaxants? They cost more! Anesth Analg 1997; 85: 476–482.Google Scholar
Yaspuda I, Hirano T, Amaha K, Fudeta H, Obara S. Chronotropic effects of succinylcholine and succinylmonocholine on the sinoatrial node. Anesthesiology 1982; 57: 289–292.Google Scholar