Trial reportCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2026
Sugammadex Vs. Neostigmine for Cerebral Perfusion During Emergence From General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Carotid Endarterectomy: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the standard treatment for carotid stenosis, but has the risk of cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome (CHS). Postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade can trigger cerebral hyperperfusion (CH), and the effects of neostigmine and sugammadex on cerebral perfusion during CEA are unclear.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of neostigmine combined with atropine and sugammadex in reversing neuromuscular blockade in CEA patients under general anesthesia and evaluate the superiority of sugammadex in maintaining normal cerebral perfusion during anesthesia emergence.
methodsA single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study was carried out and registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry website (ChiCTR2300078579). Between December 2023 and June 2024, 90 patients were recruited. After exclusions, 82 patients were randomly assigned to the sugammadex group or the neostigmine group at a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the difference in the area under the curve of the percentage of middle cerebral artery velocity relative to baseline (MCAV% S) during emergence. Secondary outcomes included multiple hemodynamic and clinical parameters, as well as pulmonary and CH-related complications within 48 h post-operation. Mediation analysis, ROC analysis, and multivariate linear regression analysis were used to illustrate the differences in MCAV%S between the two groups and subsequent analysis.
resultsThe MCAV% S in the sugammadex group was significantly lower than in the neostigmine group (24,600 [14,940-38,040] vs. 31,575 [24,210-50,040], p = 0.044), and this difference persisted after adjusting for variables (Estimate (95% CI): -10,896 [-21,387 ~ -405]; p = 0.042). The sugammadex group had shorter eye-opening and extubation times, and a lower incidence of hypoxemia and overall pulmonary complication score. Mediation analysis showed that extubation time mediated part of the effect on MCAV% S, and the ROC analysis indicated good predictive performance of MCAV% S for CH.
conclusionIn CEA patients, sugammadex is more advantageous than neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade during emergence, as it shortens extubation time, reduces excessive cerebral blood flow, and potentially lowers the incidence of postoperative complications.
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.