Reversal of Profound Neuromuscular Block by Sugammadex Administered Three Minutes after Rocuronium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rocuronium in intubation doses provides similar intubation conditions as succinylcholine, but has a longer duration of action. This study compared time to sugammadex reversal of profound rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block with time to spontaneous recovery from succinylcholine. METHODS: One hundred and fifteen adult American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I-II surgical patients were randomized to this multicenter, safety-assessor-blinded, parallel group, active-controlled, Phase IIIa trial. Anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol and an opioid. Neuromuscular transmission was blocked and tracheal intubation facilitated with 1.2 mg/kg rocuronium or 1 mg/kg succinylcholine. Sugammadex (16 mg/kg) was administered 3 min after rocuronium administration. Neuromuscular function was monitored by acceleromyography. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time from the start of relaxant administration to recovery of the first train-of-four twitch (T(1)) to 10%. RESULTS: One hundred and ten patients received study treatment. Mean times to recovery of (T(1)) to 10% and (T(1)) to 90% were significantly faster in the rocuronium-sugammadex group (4.4 and 6.2 min, respectively), as compared with the succinylcholine group (7.1 and 10.9 min, respectively; all P < 0.001). Timed from sugammadex administration, the mean time to recovery of (T(1)) to 10%, (T(1)) to 90%, and the train-of-four (T(4)/T(1)) ratio to 0.9 was 1.2, 2.9, and 2.2 min, respectively. Reoccurrence of the block was not observed. There were no serious adverse events related to study treatments. CONCLUSION: Reversal of profound high-dose rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block (1.2 mg/kg) with 16 mg/kg sugammadex was significantly faster than spontaneous recovery from 1 mg/kg succinylcholine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".