4.6 Article

Sugammadex and neostigmine dose-finding study for reversal of residual neuromuscular block at a train-of-four ratio of 0.2 (SUNDRO20)

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 116, 期 2, 页码 233-240

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev437

关键词

neostigmine; neuromuscular block; quantitative neuromuscular monitoring; reversal neuromuscular block; rocuronium; sugammadex

资金

  1. Klinik fur Anaesthesiologie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universitat Munchen, Munich, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this dose-finding study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship of sugammadex and neostigmine to reverse a commonly observed level of incomplete recovery from rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block, that is, a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) >= 0.2. Methods: Ninety-nine anaesthetized patients received rocuronium 0.6 mg kg(-1) i.v. for tracheal intubation and, if necessary, incremental doses of 0.1-0.2 mg kg(-1). Neuromuscular monitoring was performed by calibrated electromyography. Once the TOFR recovered to 0.2, patients were randomized to receive sugammadex (0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, or 1.25 mg kg(-1) i.v.), neostigmine (10, 25, 40, 55, or 70 mu g kg(-1) i.v.), or saline (n=9 per group). Primary and secondary end points were the doses necessary to restore neuromuscular function to a TOFR >= 0.9 with an upper limit of 5 and 10 min for 95% of patients, respectively. Results: Neostigmine was not able to fulfil the end points. Based on the best-fitting model, the sugammadex dose estimation for recovery to a TOFR >= 0.9 for 95% of patients within 5 and 10 min was 0.49 and 0.26 mg kg(-1), respectively. Conclusions: A residual neuromuscular block of a TOFR of 0.2 cannot be reversed reliably with neostigmine within 10 min. In the conditions studied, substantially lower doses of sugammadex than the approved dose of 2.0 mg kg(-1) may be sufficient to reverse residual rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block at a recovery of TOFR >= 0.2.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据