Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38689479›Full record

Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024

Comparison of Effects of Sugammadex and Neostigmine on Postoperative Neuromuscular Blockade Recovery in Patients with Interstitial Lung Diseases Undergoing Transbronchial Cryobiopsy: A Randomized Trial.

Liya Lu, Xiaobo Chen, Shiyue Li, Yanyi Cen

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Liya LuDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Xiaobo ChenDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Shiyue LiDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Yanyi CenDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CNState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND While many studies have been conducted on sugammadex sodium and neostigmine in patients undergoing general anesthesia, few have explored their effects in patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). MATERIAL AND METHODS Sixty-three patients who underwent transbronchial cryobiopsy under general anesthesia were enrolled in a prospective randomized study. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: neostigmine combined with atropine group (group C, n=32) and sugammadex group (group S, n=31). Induction and maintenance of anesthesia were the same in both groups. Patients received rocuronium during anesthesia. At the end of the procedure, when the T2 of the train-of-four stimulation technique (TOF) monitoring appeared, neostigmine 0.04 mg/kg combined with atropine 0.02 mg/kg was injected intravenously in group C, and sodium sugammadex 2 mg/kg was injected intravenously in group S. Time from administration of muscle relaxant antagonist to recovery of TOF ratio (TOFr) to 0.9 and extubation time were recorded. The residual rate of neuromuscular blockade at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 min after extubation was calculated. RESULTS Compared to group C, group S had a significantly shorter recovery time of TOFr to 0.9 (4.0[2.0] min vs 14.0[11.0] min, P<0.001) and extubation time (4.0[3.0] min vs 11.0[7.0] min, P<0.001). The residual rate of neuromuscular blockade was remarkably lower in group S than in group C at 3, 5, and 7 min after extubation (3.2% vs 31%, 0% vs 25%, 0% vs 6%, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Sugammadex is more effective than neostigmine in reversing the muscle-relaxant effect of rocuronium bromide in patients with ILDs.

Indexed as

Lung Diseases, InterstitialNeostigmineNeuromuscular BlockadeSugammadexAdultAgedAnesthesia Recovery PeriodBiopsyBronchoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative PeriodProspective StudiesRocuroniumNeostigmineRocuroniumSugammadex

Identifiers

PMID38689479
PMCPMC11071690
OpenAlexW4392651198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.