The reversal of neuromuscular blockade during anesthesia ensures that patients regain safe respiratory function and airway protection following surgery. In the United States, anesthesiologists primarily rely on two drugs for this purpose: neostigmine, a long-established cholinesterase inhibitor, and sugammadex, a newer selective relaxant binding agent. Their usage reflects a balance of tradition, cost considerations, and emerging evidence on patient outcomes.
Neostigmine acts by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase, allowing acetylcholine to accumulate and compete with neuromuscular blocking agents at the receptor level. This indirect mechanism means that its effectiveness depends on partial spontaneous recovery having already occurred. As a result, reversal from deep blockade may be incomplete or delayed, increasing the risk of residual paralysis.
Sugammadex, in contrast, provides a more direct and predictable effect. By encapsulating rocuronium or vecuronium molecules, it rapidly clears them from the neuromuscular junction directly, leading to swift restoration of muscle function. Some clinical trials suggest a faster return to normal function with sugammadex compared with neostigmine, along with better recovery of respiratory muscle strength 1–7.
The side effect profiles of these drugs differ significantly. Neostigmine is almost always administered with an anticholinergic agent such as glycopyrrolate to counteract muscarinic effects like bradycardia, bronchospasm, and increased salivation. Despite this precaution, hemodynamic fluctuations remain a concern.
Sugammadex does not share this cholinergic mechanism, and patients treated with it often experience more stable cardiovascular responses. Although rare reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis exist, the overall safety record of sugammadex is favorable, particularly in higher-risk populations such as those with cardiovascular disease or respiratory compromise 3,4,8–11.
Cost has been the most significant barrier to broader adoption of sugammadex in the United States. A single dose of sugammadex costs several times more than the combination of neostigmine and glycopyrrolate. As a result, many hospitals restrict its use to select scenarios, preserving neostigmine as the default agent for routine cases.However, when broader economic factors are considered, the value proposition shifts: Sugammadex frequently reduces time to extubation, accelerates operating room turnover, and decreases postoperative pulmonary complications. Replacing neostigmine with sugammadex in a portion of procedures could perhaps contribute to reducing pulmonary complications and result in overall savings after factoring in downstream costs 12–17.
In everyday practice in the United States, institutions often adopt a hybrid strategy, with neostigmine remaining a familiar and cost-effective option for patients at lower risk or when only shallow blockade is anticipated. Sugammadex, however, is increasingly favored in situations involving deeper blockade, higher-risk patients, or settings where efficiency and safety are prioritized 3,4,18,19.
As more outcome-driven evidence becomes available and hospitals refine cost–benefit considerations, the role of sugammadex is expected to expand, with its broader adoption ultimately depending on how institutions balance immediate drug costs against potential long-term gains in reduced complications, improved workflow, and enhanced patient safety.
References
1. Moss, A. P., Powell, M. F., Morgan, C. J. & Tubinis, M. D. Sugammadex versus neostigmine for routine reversal of neuromuscular blockade and the effect on perioperative efficiency. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 35, 599–603. DOI: 10.1080/08998280.2022.2079921
2. Maqusood, S., Bele, A., Verma, N., Dash, S. & Bawiskar, D. Sugammadex vs Neostigmine, a Comparison in Reversing Neuromuscular Blockade: A Narrative Review. Cureus 16, e65656. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.65656
3. Chandrasekhar, K., Togioka, B. M. & Jeffers, J. L. Sugammadex. in StatPearls (StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2025).
4. Neely, G. A., Sabir, S. & Kohli, A. Neostigmine. in StatPearls (StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2025).
5. Calvey, T. N., Wareing, M., Williams, N. E. & Chan, K. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects of neostigmine in man. Br J Clin Pharmacol 7, 149–155 (1979). DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1979.tb00915.x
6. Nguyen-Lee, J. et al. Sugammadex: Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. Curr Anesthesiol Rep 8, 168–177 (2018). DOI: 10.1007/s40140-018-0266-5
7. Panhuizen, I. F. et al. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of sugammadex 4 mg kg−1 for reversal of deep neuromuscular blockade in patients with severe renal impairment. British Journal of Anaesthesia 114, 777–784 (2015). DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet586
8. Herring, W. J. et al. A randomized trial evaluating the safety profile of sugammadex in high surgical risk ASA physical class 3 or 4 participants. BMC Anesthesiol 21, 259 (2021). DOI: 10.1186/s12871-021-01477-5
9. Mao, X. et al. A pharmacovigilance study of FDA adverse events for sugammadex. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 97, 111509 (2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111509
10. 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 14, 2397–2406 (2018). DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S179420
11. Hristovska, A.-M., 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 73, 631–641 (2018). DOI: 10.1111/anae.14160
12. Neostigmine Prices, Coupons, Copay Cards & Patient Assistance. Drugs.com https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/neostigmine.
13. Benscheidt, A. & Daratha, K. B. Sugammadex versus Neostigmine: Operating Room Time and Cost. Books, Presentations, Posters, Etc. (2019).
14. Bartels, K., Fernandez-Bustamante, A. & Melo, M. F. V. Reversal of neuromuscular block: what are the costs? British Journal of Anaesthesia 131, 202–204 (2023). DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.04.037
15. Lan, W. et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine to Reverse Neuromuscular Blockade in a University Hospital in Taiwan: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. Healthcare (Basel) 11, 240 (2023). DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11020240
16. Maddock, A. The ‘cost’ of sugammadex. Anaesthesia 72, 1558–1559 (2017). DOI: 10.1111/anae.14150
17. Bruceta, M., Singh, P. M., Bonavia, A., Carr, Z. J. & Karamchandani, K. Emergency use of sugammadex after failure of standard reversal drugs and postoperative pulmonary complications: A retrospective cohort study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 39, 232–238 (2023). DOI: 10.4103/joacp.joacp_289_21
18. Adeyinka, A. & Layer, D. A. Neuromuscular Blocking Agents. in StatPearls (StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2025).
19. Nemes, R. & Renew, J. R. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Neuromuscular Blockade: What Are the Recommendations in the USA and Other Countries? Curr Anesthesiol Rep 10, 90–98 (2020). DOI: 10.1007/s40140-020-00389-3