2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.109804
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sugammadex versus neostigmine for reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade: A randomized, double-blinded study of thoracic surgical patients evaluating hypoxic episodes in the early postoperative period

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
17
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
3
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, real-world data demonstrate that sugammadex administration is subsequently associated with reduced PPC [ 17 , 29 , 54 , 56 ], on which the current analysis is based [ 17 ]. While some studies come to similar conclusions [ 29 , 30 , 54 , 56 , 57 ], others come to different conclusions [ 57 61 ]. These studies were not considered to be appropriate for this analysis because they met one or more of the following exclusion criteria: reflected different practice in either a randomized controlled trial (measuring efficacy not effectiveness) or ex-US settings, were underpowered to detect a difference in treatment groups, were less representative (e.g., reflected a single site practice), or assessed different outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Further, real-world data demonstrate that sugammadex administration is subsequently associated with reduced PPC [ 17 , 29 , 54 , 56 ], on which the current analysis is based [ 17 ]. While some studies come to similar conclusions [ 29 , 30 , 54 , 56 , 57 ], others come to different conclusions [ 57 61 ]. These studies were not considered to be appropriate for this analysis because they met one or more of the following exclusion criteria: reflected different practice in either a randomized controlled trial (measuring efficacy not effectiveness) or ex-US settings, were underpowered to detect a difference in treatment groups, were less representative (e.g., reflected a single site practice), or assessed different outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These studies were not considered to be appropriate for this analysis because they met one or more of the following exclusion criteria: reflected different practice in either a randomized controlled trial (measuring efficacy not effectiveness) or ex-US settings, were underpowered to detect a difference in treatment groups, were less representative (e.g., reflected a single site practice), or assessed different outcomes. Had these studies been considered, the model evaluated in this resource would be less reflective of routine care in the US setting and estimated cost offsets would vary, depending on endpoints incorporated [ 29 , 30 , 54 , 56 – 58 , 60 , 61 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous meta-analyses have shown that sugammadex reversed NMB more rapidly than neostigmine and was associated with fewer residual NMB rate (TOF ratio of less than 0.9) (30,31). However, prior observational(16, 18, 32) and randomized trials (15,17,33) have reported con icting results on the effect of sugammadex on PPCs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, a large multicenter mixed-sex study found that sugammadex reversal, compared to neostigmine, reduced the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications by 30% and respiratory failure by 55% [ 28 ]. Two other recent studies found sugammadex decreased postoperative hypoxic episodes and intervention rates for postoperative respiratory failure, reducing both postoperative reintubation and non-invasive ventilation requirements [ 29 , 30 ]. The apparently emerging benefit of this relatively newer reversal agent will need to be examined in future prospective trials.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%