Data and meta-analysis for choosing sugammadex or neostigmine for routine reversal of rocuronium block in adult patients.

Adult Gamma-cyclodextrins Meta-analysis Neostigmine Neuromuscular blocking agents Sugammadex

Journal

Data in brief
ISSN: 2352-3409
Titre abrégé: Data Brief
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101654995

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Historique:
received: 17 08 2020
accepted: 25 08 2020
entrez: 18 9 2020
pubmed: 19 9 2020
medline: 19 9 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This meta-analysis was conducted to define clinical efficacy and side effects (bradycardia and post-operative nausea and vomiting [PONV]) in trials comparing sugammadex with neostigmine or placebo for reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade in adult patients. A search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library electronic databases identified 111 clinical trials for potential inclusion. We performed a meta-analysis of 32 studies that quantitatively compared the efficacy and side effects of sugammadex with either neostigmine or placebo in adult patients requiring general anesthesia. Analyzed outcomes were reversal time, anesthesia time, duration of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and the occurrence of bradycardia or PONV. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for binary data. Mean differences and 95% CI were calculated for continuous outcome data. Meta-analyses were performed using random and fixed-effects models. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I

Identifiants

pubmed: 32944599
doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.106241
pii: S2352-3409(20)31135-5
pii: 106241
pmc: PMC7481821
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

106241

Informations de copyright

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships which have, or could be perceived to have, influenced the work reported in this article.

Références

Br J Anaesth. 2019 Mar;122(3):370-378
pubmed: 30770055
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
pubmed: 15840177
Obes Surg. 2013 Oct;23(10):1558-63
pubmed: 23519634
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Jun 29;8:317-22
pubmed: 27418846
Anesthesiology. 2007 May;106(5):935-43
pubmed: 17457124
BMC Anesthesiol. 2014 Jul 12;14:53
pubmed: 25187755
Anesthesiology. 2005 Oct;103(4):695-703
pubmed: 16192761

Auteurs

William E Hurford (WE)

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Cincinnati, PO Box 670531, Cincinnati, OH, United States.

Mark H Eckman (MH)

Department of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.

Jeffrey A Welge (JA)

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.

Classifications MeSH