4.2 Article

Neostigmine vs. sugammadex: observational cohort study comparing the quality of recovery using the Postoperative Quality Recovery Scale

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 58, 期 9, 页码 1101-1110

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12389

关键词

-

资金

  1. MSD Lda, Portugal [MK-8616-081]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundQuality of postoperative recovery is an important outcome after surgery. An observational cohort study was designed to assess the quality of postoperative recovery using the Portuguese version of the Postoperative Quality Recovery Scale (PQRS) in patients treated with neostigmine vs. sugammadex as neuromuscular blocking reversal agents. MethodsA convenience sample of 101 adult patients undergoing elective surgery with general anaesthesia and treated with neostigmine (n=48) or sugammadex (n=53) as neuromuscular blocking reversal agents was included. Patients were evaluated using the Portuguese PQRS version at baseline and postoperatively at 15 (T15) and 40 (T40) min and also at days 1 and 3. Recovery was defined as return to baseline values (or better) at each time points. ResultsThe PQRS overall recovery rates were similar in both groups, but recoveries in the nociceptive (96.2% vs. 81.3%, P=0.02) and physiological (96.2% vs. 70.2%, P=0.001) domains at T40 were higher in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group. Also, there was a trend that patients treated with sugammadex reported significantly better global perspective on the impact of surgery on working capacity and daily activities, as well as higher satisfaction with anaesthetic care. ConclusionsThis pilot study suggests that sugammadex may improve physiological and nociceptive postoperative recovery as well as patient satisfaction with anaesthetic care. Although we lack an explanation for a possible favourable impact of sugammadex on quality of recovery, our results may provide sufficient preliminary data to justify a randomised trial to explore this possibility.

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

4.2
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