Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39205735›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Sugammadex vs Neostigmine, a Comparison in Reversing Neuromuscular Blockade: A Narrative Review.

Shafaque Maqusood, Amol Bele, Neeta Verma, Sambit Dash, Dushyant Bawiskar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Shafaque MaqusoodAnaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.
Amol BeleAnaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.
Neeta VermaAnaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.
Sambit DashAnaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.
Dushyant BawiskarSports Medicine, Abhinav Bindra Targeting Performance, Bangalore, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) has grown due to the development of laparoscopic and minimally invasive procedures. Respiratory insufficiency, an elevated risk of aspiration, postoperative pulmonary complications, and subsequent reintubation are among the risks linked to the residual block. The normal clinical practice calls for the pharmacologic "reversal" of these agents with either sugammadex or neostigmine prior to extubation. The administration of neostigmine is linked to a number of potential complications. In response, anaesthesiologists have begun to prescribe sugammadex more frequently for treating residual block and reversing blockade with NMBA. This review article compares and assesses neostigmine and sugammadex thoroughly in order to determine the extent to which they work as agents to reverse neuromuscular blockade. The review's findings highlight sugammadex's considerable advantages - Sugammadex's ability to quickly and reliably achieve desired train-of-four (TOF) ratios - over neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in a variety of surgical settings. In contrast, neostigmine's limitations regarding efficacy and rate of reversal were consistently noted in all of the reviewed studies, despite the fact that it is still widely used due to its lower cost and extensive clinical experience. Sugammadex is a superior option for reversing neuromuscular blockade, but incorporating it into standard clinical practice necessitates carefully weighing its potential benefits and drawbacks. Sugammadex provides notable benefits over neostigmine in terms of speed, predictability, and safety.

Indexed as

anaesthesianeostigmineneuromuscular blocking agentssugammadextrain-of-four ratios

Identifiers

PMID39205735
PMCPMC11352768

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.