ArticleCureus2026
Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine: A Comparative Study of Efficacy and Safety in the Cath Lab.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Effective and complete reversal of neuromuscular blockade is essential for safe recovery from general anesthesia. This becomes more significant in patients undergoing cardiac procedures as they have limited cardiopulmonary reserve and reduced tolerance for physiological instability. Neostigmine is the conventional agent of choice for the reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade. However, its use is associated with variable efficacy and unwanted side effects such as bradycardia and bronchoconstriction. Sugammadex, a novel relaxant binding agent, reverses neuromuscular blockade by encapsulating free rocuronium molecules, thereby rapidly diminishing their functional presence at the neuromuscular junction. Compared with neostigmine, sugammadex has demonstrated accelerated and more predictable reversal, including from a deeper level of blockade. Materials and methods The current study is a prospective, randomized, triple-blinded interventional study done for a period of one year in a tertiary care hospital in India. Fifty adult patients scheduled for an elective cardiac catheterization procedure under general anesthesia were randomized into two equal groups (n=25 each) to receive either sugammadex or neostigmine for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade. The primary aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of sugammadex and neostigmine in reversing moderate neuromuscular blockade, defined as the reappearance of the second twitch (T2) on train-of-four (TOF) monitoring until the attainment of a TOF ratio of ≥0.9, in adult patients undergoing cardiac catheterization procedures under general anesthesia. Secondary objectives included evaluating adverse event profiles and time to discharge readiness from the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) using the modified Aldrete score. Results The mean time from the reappearance of the second twitch (T2) on TOF monitoring until the attainment of a TOF ratio of ≥0.9 was significantly shorter in the sugammadex group as compared to the neostigmine group (t=14.42; p<0.001). Time to PACU discharge readiness was also significantly reduced with sugammadex (50.24±17.89 minutes) compared with neostigmine (65±15.45 minutes; t=3.15; p=0.002). Adverse effects occurred less frequently in the sugammadex group. Conclusion Sugammadex provides a swifter, more predictable, and safer reversal of neuromuscular blockade compared with neostigmine in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization procedures. Sugammadex facilitates earlier recovery and improved postoperative outcomes in the cath lab setting.
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.