4.6 Article

Reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block by the selective relaxant binding agent sugammadex - A dose-finding and safety study

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 104, 期 4, 页码 667-674

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200604000-00009

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Sugammadex (Org 25969) forms a complex with steroidal neuromuscular blocking agents, thereby reversing neuromuscular block. This study investigated the dose-response relation, safety, and pharmacokinetics of sugammadex to reverse rocuronium-induced block. Methods. Twenty-seven male surgical patients aged 18-64 yr were randomly assigned to receive placebo or sugammadex (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, or 4.0 mg/kg) for reversal of 0.6 mg/kg rocuronium induced neuromuscular block. Anesthesia was induced and maintained using intravenous fentanyl and propofol. Neuromuscular function was assessed using acceleromyography. Sugammadex or placebo was administered at reappearance of T. of the train-of-four. The primary efficacy variable was the time required for recovery to a train-of-four ratio of 0.9. Results: Sugammadex decreased median recovery time in a dose-dependent manner from 21.0 min in the placebo group to 1.1 min in the group receiving 4.0 mg/kg sugammadex. Doses of sugammadex of 2.0 mg/kg or greater reversed rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block within 3 min. A median of 59-77% of sugammadex was excreted unchanged in the urine within 16 h, mostly in the first 8 h. Sugammadex increased the proportion of the rocuronium dose excreted unchanged in the urine (from a median of 19% in the placebo group to 53% in the 4.0-mg/kg group within 16 h). Sugammadex was safe and well tolerated. No evidence of recurarization was observed in any patient. Conclusion: At doses of 2.0 mg/kg or greater, sugammadex safely reversed 0.6 mg/kg rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block in a dose-dependent manner. Sugammadex enhanced renal excretion of rocuronium and was excreted unchanged by the kidneys.

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