4.7 Article

Effects of sugammadex versus neostigmine on postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia in adult patients:a single-center retrospective study

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-32730-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to compare the effect of sugammadex and neostigmine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) within the first 24 hours after general anesthesia. The retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery in Seoul, South Korea. The results showed that sugammadex had a significantly lower incidence of PONV compared to neostigmine/glycopyrrolate. In conclusion, the use of sugammadex decreases the risk of PONV within the first 24 hours after general anesthesia.
We aimed to compare the effect of sugammadex to that of neostigmine with respect to the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during the first 24 h following general anesthesia. This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery under general anesthesia in 2020 at an academic medical center in Seoul, South Korea. The exposure groups were determined according to whether the patient received sugammadex or neostigmine as a reversal agent. The primary outcome was PONV occurrence during the first 24 h postoperatively (overall). The association between the type of reversal agent and primary outcome was investigated using logistic regression while adjusting for confounding variables using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW). Of the 10,912 patients included in this study, 5,918 (54.2%) received sugammadex. Sugammadex was associated with a significantly lower incidence of overall PONV (15.8% vs. 17.7%; odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = 0.010) after sIPTW. In conclusion, compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate, sugammadex use has a lower risk of PONV during the first 24 h following general anesthesia.

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

4.7
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