Skip to main content
Download PDF

The effect of glycopyrrolate vs. atropine in combination with neostigmine on cardiovascular system for reversal of residual neuromuscular blockade in the elderly: a randomized controlled trial

BMC Anesthesiology volume 24, Article number: 123 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Glycopyrrolate-neostigmine (G/N) for reversing neuromuscular blockade (NMB) causes fewer changes in heart rate (HR) than atropine-neostigmine (A/N). This advantage may be especially beneficial for elderly patients. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the cardiovascular effects of G/N and A/N for the reversal of NMB in elderly patients.

Methods

Elderly patients aged 65–80 years who were scheduled for elective non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to the glycopyrrolate group (group G) or the atropine group (group A). Following the last administration of muscle relaxants for more than 30 min, group G received 4 ug/kg glycopyrrolate and 20 ug/kg neostigmine, while group A received 10 ug/kg atropine and 20 ug/kg neostigmine. HR, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and ST segment in lead II (ST-II) were measured 1 min before administration and 1–15 min after administration.

Results

HR was significantly lower in group G compared to group A at 2–8 min after administration (P < 0.05). MAP was significantly lower in group G compared to group A at 1–4 min after administration (P < 0.05). ST-II was significantly depressed in group A compared to group G at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 15 min after administration (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

In comparison to A/N, G/N for reversing residual NMB in the elderly has a more stable HR, MAP, and ST-II within 15 min after administration.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Neuromuscular blocking drugs can assist in tracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation, and improving surgical conditions during general anesthesia [1, 2]. However, it causes incomplete recovery from neuromuscular blockade (NMB), which is strongly linked to adverse postoperative respiratory events [3,4,5]. Muscle relaxation antagonists should be routinely used to reverse residual NMB in patients undergoing general anesthesia [6, 7]. Currently, muscle relaxation antagonists used in clinical practice include glycopyrrolate-neostigmine (G/N), atropine-neostigmine (A/N), and sugammadex.

Sugammadex can rapidly and effectively reverse deep NMB than neostigmine, with fewer postoperative pulmonary complications [8,9,10]. However, its higher cost and the fact that it can only selectively antagonize aminosteroid (but not benzylisoquinolinium) relaxants affect its prevalent use in clinical practice. A/N for reversing residual NMB causes significant fluctuations in heart rate (HR), which have no negative consequences for most young patients. However, in elderly patients with poor cardiovascular reserve function and mostly coexisting cardiovascular disease, significant HR fluctuations may induce unwanted cardiovascular events [11,12,13].

The pharmacokinetics of glycopyrrolate are synchronous with those of neostigmine [14, 15]. Several studies have found that G/N results in less change in HR than A/N [16,17,18,19]. This advantage may be especially beneficial for the elderly in reducing cardiovascular responses and the occurrence of cardiovascular events such as myocardial ischemia and arrhythmias. However, the cardiovascular effects of G/N in elderly patients have not yet been adequately investigated. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to focus on elderly patients at increased risk of cardiovascular complications and compare the cardiovascular effects of G/N and A/N for the reversal of NMB. We hypothesized that G/N is more stable for HR, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and ST segment in lead II (ST-II) than A/N within 15 min after administration.

Materials and methods

Study design and ethics

This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery at the Anesthesiology and Operation Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. The study was approved by the Scientific Research and Clinical Trial Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Ref: 2022-KY-0763-002, 31/05/2022), and registered in the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (clinical trial registration No: ChiCTR2200061576, 29/06/2022). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The trial report complies with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist.

Participants

We recruited elderly patients scheduled for elective non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia from June 2022 to September 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) aged 65 to 80, male or female; (2) American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II; (3) 18 ≤ body mass index (BMI) ≤ 28; (4) the expected operation time < 4 h; (5) planned use of neostigmine to antagonize residual NMB; (6) voluntary participation in this trial and signed the informed consent.

Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) allergies to anticholinergic drugs and their components; (2) respiratory, circulatory, and digestive system diseases that affect HR; (3) use of medications affecting the cholinergic system; (4) poor communication skills.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were HR at 1 min before administration and 1–15 min after administration. Secondary outcomes included: (1) MAP at 1 min before administration and 1–15 min after administration; (2) ST segment changes in lead II (changes in ST-II) at 1–15 min after administration.

Data collection

Noninvasive blood pressure (NBP) was measured by an upper arm cuff at an automatic interval of 3 min intraoperatively, which was then adjusted to a 1-minute interval before administration of the test drug until 15 min after administration. HR, MAP, and ST-II were recorded automatically every 1 min from 1 min before (the baseline) until 15 min after administration by a multifunction monitor. After the observation, data were collected via electronic recording of the same monitor.

Randomization and blinding

Using a computer-generated randomization table, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the glycopyrrolate group (group G) or the atropine group (group A). Group assignments were secured in a sequentially numbered, sealed opaque envelope, which was then handed to a nurse who was not involved in the study. Test drugs were prepared in identical 10 mL syringes by the same nurse. The anesthesiologists involved in anesthesia management and postoperative follow-up were blinded to the group assignments.

Anesthetic and surgical management

Once in the operating room, all subjects underwent standard monitoring, including electrocardiogram (ECG), NBP, pulse oxygen saturation (Sp02), and bispectral index (BIS). After inducing general anesthesia with alfentanil (0.03–0.08 mg/kg), etomidate (0.2–0.3 mg/kg), and cisatracurium (0.15 mg/kg), tracheal intubation was performed and mechanical ventilation initiated. The appropriate depth of anesthesia (BIS value 40–60) was maintained by micropump infusion of propofol (2–4 mg/kg/h), remifentanil (0.05–0.15 ug/kg/min), and 0.5–2 vol% sevoflurane/oxygen/air mix inhalation. Intraoperative blood pressure was kept within 20% of baseline, and HR was maintained at 45–90 beats per min (bpm). 1/3 of the induction dose of cisatracurium was added intraoperatively as needed. There were no additional muscle relaxants administered for at least 30 min before the procedure ended. At the end of the surgical procedure, the administration of sevoflurane inhalation, propofol, and remifentanil pumping was discontinued.

Following the last administration of muscle relaxants for more than 30 min, antagonizing residual NMB was performed. Group G received an intravenous injection of 4 ug/kg glycopyrrolate and 20 ug/kg neostigmine, whereas group A received an intravenous injection of 10 ug/kg atropine and 20 ug/kg neostigmine. Vital signs were closely monitored, and the tracheal tube was removed if respiratory recovery was satisfactory and extubation criteria were met. Intravenous 5 ug/kg atropine was given as treatment if the patient’s HR fell below 45 bpm during the observation period.

Sample size calculation and statistical analysis

In this study, the first 20 patients enrolled were used to calculate the sample size by power analysis. The primary variable studied was HR at different time points in the two groups, which was analyzed by repeated measurements ANOVA using SPSS 26.0, and the bias η² of the time × group interaction was 0.251. The effect size was calculated as 0.58 by Gpower 3.1, which is considered a relatively significant difference. To achieve a power of 0.99 at a type 1 error of 0.05 based on the repeated measurements ANOVA, a sample size of 27 in each group was required. To account for dropouts, 34 patients were finally included in each group.

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 26.0. The normal distribution of the variables was examined using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Normally distributed measures were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x ± s), and t-test for independent samples was used for comparison between groups. Non-normally distributed measures were reported as median (M) and interquartile range (IQR), and Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison between groups. Count data were expressed as cases (%), and χ2 test or Fisher test was used for comparison between groups. Repeated measurement data with normal distribution was compared using repeated measures ANOVA, whereas repeated measurement data with non-normal distribution was compared using generalized estimating equations. Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons, and P < 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.

Results

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of study

Full size image

A total of 96 patients were evaluated for eligibility, and 28 patients were excluded before randomization. As a result, 68 patients were included in this study who were equally randomized into 2 groups: group G (n = 34) and group A (n = 34). Two patients in group G and four in group A were excluded because their tracheal tubes were removed within 10 min after administration. Furthermore, two patients in group G were excluded because they received atropine as a remedy. 60 patients (30 in group G and 30 in group A) were included in the final analysis. The study procedure is shown in Fig. 1.

The two groups were similar in terms of gender, age, BMI, ASA class, surgery duration, anesthesia duration, and cisatracurium dose (Table 1).

Table 1 Patient characteristics and intraoperative data
Full size table

Data are expressed by median (interquartile range), number of patients, or mean ± standard deviation. Group G, glycopyrrolate group; Group A, atropine group; BMI, body mass index; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Heart rate at various times after administration

Full size image

Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. *P < 0.05 vs. Group A, #P < 0.05 vs. the baseline. HR, heart rate; Group G, glycopyrrolate group; Group A, atropine group.

HR was significantly lower in group G comepared to group A at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 min after administration (P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P = 0.001; P = 0.004; P = 0.015; P = 0.024, respectively). Compared to the baseline, there was no statistically significant difference in HR at all time points after administration in group G (P > 0.05), whereas HR was significantly higher in group A at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 min after administration (P = 0.035; P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P = 0.007, respectively). (Fig. 2)

Fig. 3
figure 3

Mean arterial pressure at various times after administration

Full size image

Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. *P < 0.05 vs. Group A, #P < 0.05 vs. the baseline. MAP, mean arterial pressure; Group G, glycopyrrolate group; Group A, atropine group.

MAP was significantly lower in group G comepared to group A at 1, 2, 3, and 4 min after administration (P = 0.011; P = 0.014; P = 0.008; P = 0.026, respectively).

Compared with the baseline, there was no statistically significant difference in MAP at all time points after administration in group G (P > 0.05), whereas MAP was significantly higher in group A at 1, 2, 3, and 4 min after administration (P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P < 0.001; P = 0.001, respectively). (Fig. 3)

Fig. 4
figure 4

ST segment changes in lead II at various times after administration

Full size image

Box = interquartile range; whiskers = 10th–90th percentile; median line = median. *P < 0.05 vs. Group A, #P < 0.05 vs. the baseline. Changes in ST-II, ST segment changes in lead II; Group G, glycopyrrolate group; Group A, atropine group.

ST-II was significantly depressed in group A compared to group G at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15 min after administration (P = 0.017; P = 0.042; P = 0.040; P = 0.023; P = 0.010; P = 0.001; P = 0.005; P < 0.001; P = 0.004; P = 0.037; P = 0.025; P = 0.028, respectively). Compared to the baseline, ST-II changes in group G at each time point after administration showed no statistical significance (P > 0.05), whereas ST-II was significantly depressed in group A at 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 min after administration (P = 0.032, P < 0.001, P = 0.004, P = 0.010, P = 0.033, P = 0.001, P = 0.047, respectively). (Fig. 4)

Discussion

In this randomized controlled trial of elderly patients undergoing general anesthesia, G/N for reversing residual NMB had a more stable HR, MAP, and ST-II within 15 min after administration than A/N. In addition, the current study also discovered ST segment depression in lead II in elderly patients within 15 min after A/N administration, which was not observed after G/N administration.

Several studies have demonstrated that 20–40 ug/kg neostigmine can effectively reverse cisatracurium-induced shallow neuromuscular blockade [20,21,22,23,24]. Given the cardiovascular side effects of anticholinergic drugs in combination with neostigmine, dose selection in elderly patients should be cautious. The dose of neostigmine used in this trial was 20 ug/kg. Our findings showed that the HR of the elderly in the atropine group peaked 2 min after administration and then gradually slowed down. In contrast, the HR of the glycopyrrolate group did not change significantly. In an earlier multi-center study, Cozanitis et al. compared the effects of 10 ug/kg glycopyrrolate and 20 ug/kg atropine in combination with 50 ug/kg neostigmine in non-elderly patients. This study found that the change in HR of the glycopyrrolate group was significantly less than that of the atropine group and that the difference in HR between the two groups lasted up to 40 min after administration [18]. Similarly, an earlier study by Mirakhur et al. demonstrated better HR stability with 10 ug/kg glycopyrrolate in combination with 50 ug/kg neostigmine for reversal of NMB in elderly patients compared to 20 ug/kg atropine [25]. Our findings were largely consistent with these older evaluations, but some slight differences remained. First, unlike the study by Cozanitis et al., the difference in HR between the two groups in the current study lasted only up to 8 min after administration. This suggested that the lower the dose of antagonist, the smaller the effect on HR, and the shorter the duration of the difference in HR between the two groups. Furthermore, the atropine group experienced a greater initial increase in HR in this study, for which there were two possible explanations. On the one hand, this was due to the higher dose ratio of A/N (1:2) in our study. On the other hand, elderly patients may be more sensitive to atropine because their vagal tone is lower, resulting in a greater initial increase in HR.

In the present study, although the blood pressure changes in both groups were within the clinically acceptable range, the blood pressure fluctuations in elderly patients in the atropine group were significantly higher than those in the glycopyrrolate group. Furthermore, ST segment depression in lead II was observed at multiple time points following A/N administration, and ST segment still had not returned to baseline within 15 min. The ST depression may be a sign of coronary ischemia [26, 27], which could be associated with the atropine-induced increase in HR [28, 29]. However, there was no significant depression in ST-II in the glycopyrrolate group, implying that low-dose G/N may not affect myocardial perfusion in elderly patients. This would be especially beneficial for the elderly with underlying myocardial ischemia or without a clinically confirmed diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

A large retrospective study found no significant correlation between G/N for NMB and the occurrence of cardiovascular complications 30 days postoperatively, but its exploratory analysis identified an elderly population susceptible to the cardiovascular side effects of G/N administration [30]. In the current study, two patients experienced a transient initial tachycardia (> 100 bpm) following A/N, for which we gave only close observation without treatment. In contrast, two patients in the glycopyrrolate group had severe bradycardia (< 45 bpm). There have been a few case reports of bradycardia and atrio-ventricular block following G/N [31, 32]. This may be a reminder to be alert to the occurrence of bradycardia with G/N in elderly patients.

There are several limitations to this study. Firstly, for the baseline, we only collected data 1 min before administration, and it would be more rigorous and convincing to average data over a period of time. Secondly, for ischemia detection, only ST segment in lead II was monitored using a 3-lead system, whereas a 5-lead system with a lateral ventricular lead should be a better choice, more sensitive than lead II and less intimidating than a 12 lead.

In conclusion, G/N for reversing residual NMB in the elderly has a more stable HR, MAP, and ST-II within 15 min after administration than A/N. Furthermore, we find that ST segment depression is significant in elderly patients within 15 min after A/N administration, which may increase the risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia.

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

G/N:

glycopyrrolate-neostigmine

A/N:

atropine-neostigmine

NMB:

neuromuscular blockade

HR:

heart rate

MAP:

mean arterial pressure

ST-II:

ST segment in lead II

Changes in ST-II:

ST segment changes in lead II

CONSORT:

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiology

BMI:

body mass index

NBP:

noninvasive blood pressure

ECG:

electrocardiogram

Sp02 :

pulse oxygen saturation

BIS:

bispectral index

References

  1. Blobner M, Frick CG, Stäuble RB, Feussner H, Schaller SJ, Unterbuchner C, et al. Neuromuscular blockade improves surgical conditions (NISCO). Surg Endosc. 2015;29(3):627–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mencke T, Echternach M, Kleinschmidt S, Lux P, Barth V, Plinkert PK, et al. Laryngeal morbidity and quality of tracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2003;98(5):1049–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Avram MJ, Greenberg SB, Shear TD, Vender JS, et al. Residual neuromuscular block in the Elderly: incidence and clinical implications. Anesthesiology. 2015;123(6):1322–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sauer M, Stahn A, Soltesz S, Noeldge-Schomburg G, Mencke T. The influence of residual neuromuscular block on the incidence of critical respiratory events. A randomised, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28(12):842–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Murphy GS, Brull SJ. Residual neuromuscular block: lessons unlearned. Part I: definitions, incidence, and adverse physiologic effects of residual neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg. 2010;111(1):120–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Luo J, Chen S, Min S, Peng L. Reevaluation and update on efficacy and safety of neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018;14:2397–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Miller RD, Ward TA. Monitoring and pharmacologic reversal of a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade should be routine. Anesth Analg. 2010;111(1):3–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hurford WE, Welge JA, Eckman MH. Sugammadex versus neostigmine for routine reversal of rocuronium block in adult patients: a cost analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2020;67:110027.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kheterpal S, Vaughn MT, Dubovoy TZ, Shah NJ, Bash LD, Colquhoun DA, et al. Sugammadex versus Neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade and postoperative pulmonary complications (STRONGER): a Multicenter Matched Cohort Analysis. Anesthesiology. 2020;132(6):371–1381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hristovska AM, Duch P, Allingstrup M, Afshari A. The comparative efficacy and safety of sugammadex and neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults. A Cochrane systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Anaesthesia. 2018;73(5):631–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abbott TEF, Pearse RM, Archbold RA, Ahmad T, Niebrzegowska E, Wragg A, et al. A prospective International Multicentre Cohort Study of Intraoperative Heart Rate and systolic blood pressure and myocardial Injury after noncardiac surgery: results of the VISION Study. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(6):1936–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Das S, Forrest K, Howell S. General anaesthesia in elderly patients with cardiovascular disorders: choice of anaesthetic agent. Drugs Aging. 2010;27(4):265–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Reich DL, Bennett-Guerrero E, Bodian CA, Hossain S, Winfree W, Krol M. Intraoperative tachycardia and hypertension are independently associated with adverse outcome in noncardiac surgery of long duration. Anesth Analg. 2002;95(2):273–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chabicovsky M, Winkler S, Soeberdt M, Kilic A, Masur C, Abels C. Pharmacology, toxicology and clinical safety of glycopyrrolate. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2019;370:154–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mirakhur RK, Dundee JW. Glycopyrrolate: pharmacology and clinical use. Anaesthesia. 1983;38(12):1195–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Howard J, Wigley J, Rosen G, D’mello J, Glycopyrrolate. It’s time to review. J Clin Anesth. 2017;36:51–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Salem MG, Ahearn RS. Atropine or glycopyrrolate with neostigmine 5 mg: a comparative dose-response study. J R Soc Med. 1986;79(1):19–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Cozanitis DA, Dundee JW, Merrett JD, Jones CJ, Mirakhur RK. Evaluation of glycopyrrolate and atropine as adjuncts to reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents in a true-to-life situation. Br J Anaesth. 1980;52(1):85–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mirakhur RK, Dundee JW, Clarke RS. Glycopyrrolate-neostigmine mixture for antagonism of neuromuscular block: comparison with atropine-neostigmine mixture. Br J Anaesth. 1977;49(8):825–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thilen SR, Weigel WA, Todd MM, Dutton RP, Lien CA, Grant SA, et al. 2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Monitoring and antagonism of neuromuscular blockade: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Neuromuscular Blockade. Anesthesiology. 2023;138(1):13–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Plaud B, Baillard C, Bourgain JL, Bouroche G, Desplanque L, Devys JM, et al. Guidelines on muscle relaxants and reversal in anaesthesia. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020;39(1):125–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Choi ES, Oh AY, Seo KS, Hwang JW, Ryu JH, Koo BW, et al. Optimum dose of neostigmine to reverse shallow neuromuscular blockade with rocuronium and cisatracurium. Anaesthesia. 2016;71(4):443–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Preault A, Capron F, Chantereau C, Donati F, Dimet J. Under sevoflurane anaesthesia, a reduced dose of neostigmine can antagonize a shallow neuromuscular block: a double-blind, randomised study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016;35(4):269–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fuchs-Buder T, Baumann C, De Guis J, Guerci P, Meistelman C. Low-dose neostigmine to antagonise shallow atracurium neuromuscular block during inhalational anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013;30(10):594–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mirakhur RK. Antagonism of neuromuscular block in the elderly. A comparison of atropine and glycopyrronium in a mixture with neostigmine. Anaesthesia. 1985;40(3):254–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt DL, et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(14):1289–367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaul P, Fu Y, Chang WC, Harrington RA, Wagner GS, Goodman SG, et al. Prognostic value of ST segment depression in acute coronary syndromes: insights from PARAGON-A applied to GUSTO-IIb. PARAGON-A and GUSTO IIb investigators. Platelet IIb/IIIa antagonism for the Reduction of Acute Global Organization Network. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38(1):64–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Slogoff S, Keats AS. Myocardial ischemia revisited. Anesthesiology. 2006;105(1):214–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Helwani MA, Amin A, Lavigne P, Rao S, Oesterreich S, Samaha E, et al. Etiology of Acute Coronary syndrome after noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology. 2018;128(6):1084–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shaydenfish D, Scheffenbichler FT, Kelly BJ, Lihn AL, Deng H, Nourmahnad A, et al. Effects of anticholinesterase reversal under General Anesthesia on Postoperative Cardiovascular complications: a retrospective cohort study. Anesth Analg. 2020;130(3):685–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Nkemngu NJ, Tochie JN. Atrio-ventricular Block following neostigmine-glycopyrrolate reversal in non-heart transplant patients: Case Report. Anesth Prog. 2018;65(3):187–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Shields JA. Heart block and prolonged Q-Tc interval following muscle relaxant reversal: a case report. AANA J. 2008;76(1):41–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank our anesthesiology colleagues for their cooperation in facilitating this trial. We are also grateful to our post-anesthesia care unit nurse colleagues for their kind assistance.

Funding

This research received no grants from public, commercial, or not-for profit funding agencies.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yanping Wang and Liyuan Ren contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, No.1 East Jianshe Road, 450052, Zhengzhou, China

    Yanping Wang, Liyuan Ren, Yanshuang Li, Yinhui Zhou & Jianjun Yang

Authors
  1. Yanping Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liyuan Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yanshuang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yinhui Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jianjun Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YPW designed the study, conducted the study, acquired the data and revised the manuscript. LYR acquired the data, analyzed the data, prepared figures and tables, wrote the manuscript and modified the language. YSL acquired the data and analyzed the data. YHZ analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. JJY revised the manuscript and modified the language. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanping Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Scientific Research and Clinical Trial Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Ref: 2022-KY-0763-002, 31/05/2022). The written informed consents were obtained from all patients before participation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Ren, L., Li, Y. et al. The effect of glycopyrrolate vs. atropine in combination with neostigmine on cardiovascular system for reversal of residual neuromuscular blockade in the elderly: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 24, 123 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02512-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02512-x

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us