Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2021
Comparison of neuromuscular blockade recovery co-administered with neostigmine and different doses of calcium gluconate: a randomized control trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of different head-high lateral extubation on adverse reactions in the peri-extubation period of pediatric OSAS surgery under general anesthesia.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Coadministration of intravenous calcium along with neostigmine for rapid neuromuscular blockade recovery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCalcium increases the probability of transmitter release at the neuromuscular junction. It is not known whether there is a dose-dependent relationship between the dosage of calcium gluconate and the probability of transmitter release for non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade (NMB) recovery by acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AchEIs). This study compared the neuromuscular recovery time and the incidence of postoperative residual curarization (PORC) according to the dosage of calcium gluconate co-administered with neostigmine in three patient groups.
methodsPatients were randomly allocated to a control group, a 5 mg/kg calcium gluconate group (calcium 5 group), or a 10 mg/kg calcium gluconate group (calcium 10 group). In patients with a TOF ratio (TOFr) between 0.2-0.7, 0.04 mg/kg of neostigmine was administered and both 0.2 mg of glycopyrrolate and 0.4 mg of atropine per 1 mg of neostigmine were administered. And additional 5 or 10 mg/kg of calcium gluconate were administrated to the calcium 5 and 10 groups. The primary endpoint was neuromuscular recovery time (the time between reversal and TOFr≥0.9). The secondary endpoints were the incidence of PORC at 5, 10, and 20 min after reversal administration and the train-of-four ratio (TOFr) at each time point.
resultsThe neuromuscular recovery time was 5.3 min in the control group, 3.9 min in the calcium 5 group, and 4.1 min in the calcium 10 group, respectively (P = 0.004). The incidence of PORC at 5 min after neostigmine administration was 12 in the control group, 4 in the calcium 5 group, and 4 in the calcium 10 group, respectively, with statistical significance (P = 0.014).
conclusionsThe co-administration of calcium gluconate with neostigmine safely promoted early NMB recovery, and the neuromuscular recovery time of the calcium 10 group tended to be more evenly distributed than that of the calcium 5 group.
trial registrationhttps://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/index.jsp(KCT0004182 ). Date of registration: August 122,019.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.