The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reversal of Profound Rocuronium-induced Blockade with Sugammadex: A Randomized Comparison with Neostigmine
Abstract
Background: Traditionally, reversal of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents was achieved using acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, but these are unable to adequately reverse profound blockade. Sugammadex is a novel reversal agent, reversing the effects of rocuronium by encapsulation. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine for reversal of profound rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. Methods: This phase III, randomized study enrolled surgical patients, aged 18 yr or older with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-IV. Patients were randomized to receive sugammadex (4.0 mg/kg) or neostigmine (70 microg/kg) plus glycopyrrolate (14 microg/kg). Anesthetized patients received an intubating dose of rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg), with maintenance doses (0.15 mg/kg) as required. Neuromuscular monitoring was performed by acceleromyography. Sugammadex or neostigmine was administered at reappearance of 1-2 posttetanic counts (profound neuromuscular blockade). The primary efficacy parameter was the time from sugammadex or neostigmine-glycopyrrolate administration to return of the train-of-four ratio to 0.9. Results: In the intent-to-treat population (n = 37 in each group), geometric mean time to recovery to a train-of-four ratio of 0.9 with sugammadex was 2.9 min versus 50.4 min with neostigmine-glycopyrrolate (P < 0.0001) (median, 2.7 min vs. 49.0 min). Most sugammadex patients (97%) recovered to a train-of-four ratio of 0.9 within 5 min after administration. In contrast, most neostigmine patients (73%) recovered between 30 and 60 min after administration, with 23% requiring more than 60 min to recover to a train-of-four ratio of 0.9. Conclusions: Recovery from profound rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade was significantly faster with sugammadex versus with neostigmine, suggesting that sugammadex has a unique ability to rapidly reverse profound rocuronium neuromuscular blockade.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kirmeier, E., Eriksson, L. I., Lewald, H., Jonsson Fagerlund, M., Hoeft, A., Hollmann, M., Meistelman, C., Hunter, J. M., Ulm, K., Blobner, M., et al. (2019) · The Lancet Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(18)30294-7 · Cited by 372
Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults
Hristovska, A.-M., Duch, P., Allingstrup, M., & Afshari, A. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012763 · Cited by 319
Brull, S. J., & Murphy, G. S. (2010) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181da8312 · Cited by 288
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, R. K., Caldwell, J. E., Brull, S. J., & Soto, R. G.
- Venue
- Anesthesiology
- Published
- 2008-11-01
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 816-824
- ISSN
- 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2082753953
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reversal of Profound Rocuronium-induced Blockade with Sugammadex: A Randomized Comparison with Neostigmine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aln.0b013e31818a3fee
- The paper
- Jones, R. K., Caldwell, J. E., Brull, S. J., & Soto, R. G. (2008). Reversal of Profound Rocuronium-induced Blockade with Sugammadex: A Randomized Comparison with Neostigmine. Anesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e31818a3fee
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.