Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38331969›Full record

ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2024

Decurarization After Thoracic Anesthesia using sugammadex compared to neostigmine (DATA trial): a multicenter randomized double-blinded controlled trial.

Federico Piccioni, Giulio L Rosboch, Cecilia Coccia, Ilaria Donati, Paolo Proto, Edoardo Ceraolo, Federico Pierconti, Martina Pagano, Daniele Vernocchi, Franco Valenza and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Federico PiccioniDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. drfedericopiccioni@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9589-1891
Giulio L RosbochAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Dipartimento Di Anestesia, Rianimazione Ed Emergenze AOU Città Della Salute E Della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Cecilia CocciaAnesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Ilaria DonatiAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Paolo ProtoAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Edoardo CeraoloAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Dipartimento Di Anestesia, Rianimazione Ed Emergenze AOU Città Della Salute E Della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Federico PiercontiAnesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Martina PaganoSchool of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Daniele VernocchiSchool of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Franco ValenzaAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Giorgio Della RoccaDepartment of Medical Area, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino · ITFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITUniversity of Milan · ITAzienda Unita' Sanitaria Locale Di Modena · ITHumanitas University · ITUniversity of Udine · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThoracic surgery is a high-risk surgery especially for the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Postoperative residual paralysis has been shown to be a risk factor for pulmonary complications. Nevertheless, there are few data in the literature concerning the use of neuromuscular blocking agent antagonists in patients undergoing lung surgery.

methodsSeventy patients were randomized in three Italian centers to receive sugammadex or neostigmine at the end of thoracic surgery according to the depth of the residual neuromuscular block. The primary outcome was the time from reversal administration to a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) of 0.9. Secondary outcomes were the time to TOFR of 1.0, to extubation, to postanesthesia unit (PACU) discharge, postoperative complications until 30 days after surgery, and length of hospital stay.

resultsMedian time to recovery to a TOFR of 0.9 was significantly shorter in the sugammadex group compared to the neostigmine one (88 vs. 278 s - P < 0.001). The percentage of patients who recovered to a TOFR of 0.9 within 5 min from reversal administration was 94.4% and 58.8% in the sugammadex and neostigmine groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The time to extubation, but not the PACU stay time, was significantly shorter in the sugammadex group. No differences were found between the study groups as regards postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. The superiority of sugammadex in shortening the recovery time was confirmed for both deep/moderate and shallow/minimal neuromuscular block.

conclusionsAmong patients undergoing thoracic surgery, sugammadex ensures a faster recovery from the neuromuscular block and earlier extubation compared to neostigmine.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaNeostigmineNeuromuscular blockadePostoperative complicationsSugammadexThoracic surgery

Identifiers

PMID38331969
PMCPMC10854138
OpenAlexW4391654352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.