4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Sugammadex Provides Faster Reversal of Vecuronium-Induced Neuromuscular Blockade Compared with Neostigmine: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

期刊

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
卷 110, 期 1, 页码 64-73

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181ac53c3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex, a specifically designed gamma-cyclodextrin, is a selective relaxant binding drug that rapidly reverses rocuronium-induced and, to a lesser extent, vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. In this study, we compared the efficacy of sugammadex and neostigmine for the reversal of vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade in patients scheduled for elective surgery. METHODS: Patients aged >= 18 yr, ASA Class I-III, and scheduled for a surgical procedure under sevoflurane/opioid anesthesia received an intubating dose of vecuronium (0.1 mg/kg) and maintenance doses of 0.02-0.03 mg/kg at reappearance of the second twitch (T-2) of train-of-four (TOF) if required. Neuromuscular blockade was monitored using acceleromyography (TOF-Watch (R) SX, Schering-Plough Ireland, Dublin, Ireland). At end of surgery, at reappearance of T2 after the last dose of vecuronium, patients were randomized to receive either sugammadex (2 mg/kg) or neostigmine (50 mu g/kg) plus glycopyrrolate (10 mu g/kg) IV. The primary efficacy end-point was time from start of administration of sugammadex or neostigmine to recovery of TOF ratio to 0.9. RESULTS: The geometric mean time to recovery of the TOF ratio to 0.9 was significantly faster with sugammadex compared with neostigmine (2.7 min [95% confidence interval {CI}]: 2.2-3.3) versus 1.7.9 min [95% CI: 1.3.1-24.3], respectively; P < 0.0001). The mean recovery times to a TOF ratio of 0.8 and 0.7 were also significantly shorter with sugammadex. No serious adverse events or unexpected side effects were reported with either drug. CONCLUSION: Sugammadex provided significantly faster reversal of vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade compared with neostigmine. (Anesth Analg 2010;110:64-73)

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