↓ Skip to main content

Low-Dose or High-Dose Rocuronium Reversed with Neostigmine or Sugammadex for Cesarean Delivery Anesthesia

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesia and analgesia, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Low-Dose or High-Dose Rocuronium Reversed with Neostigmine or Sugammadex for Cesarean Delivery Anesthesia
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, May 2016
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000001197
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petr Stourac, Milan Adamus, Dagmar Seidlova, Tomas Pavlik, Petr Janku, Ivo Krikava, Zdenek Mrozek, Martin Prochazka, Jozef Klucka, Roman Stoudek, Ivana Bartikova, Martina Kosinova, Hana Harazim, Hana Robotkova, Karel Hejduk, Zuzana Hodicka, Martina Kirchnerova, Jana Francakova, Lenka Obare Pyszkova, Jarmila Hlozkova, Pavel Sevcik

Abstract

Rocuronium for cesarean delivery under general anesthesia is an alternative to succinylcholine for rapid-sequence induction of anesthesia because of the availability of sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. However, there are no large well-controlled studies in women undergoing general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. The aim of this noninferiority trial was to determine whether rocuronium and sugammadex confer benefit in time to tracheal intubation (primary outcome) and other neuromuscular blockade outcomes compared with succinylcholine, rocuronium, and neostigmine in women undergoing general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. We aimed to enroll all women undergoing general anesthesia for cesarean delivery in the 2 participating university hospitals (Brno, Olomouc, Czech Republic) in this single-blinded, randomized, controlled study. Women were randomly assigned to the ROC group (muscle relaxation induced with rocuronium 1 mg/kg and reversed with sugammadex 2-4 mg/kg) or the SUX group (succinylcholine 1 mg/kg for induction, rocuronium 0.3 mg/kg for maintenance, and neostigmine 0.03 mg/kg for reversal of the neuromuscular blockade). The interval from the end of propofol administration to tracheal intubation was the primary end point with a noninferiority margin of 20 seconds. We recorded intubating conditions (modified Viby-Mogensen score), neonatal outcome (Apgar score <7; umbilical artery pH), anesthesia complications, and subjective patient complaints 24 hours after surgery. We enrolled 240 parturients. The mean time to tracheal intubation was 2.9 seconds longer in the ROC group (95% confidence interval, -5.3 to 11.2 seconds), noninferior compared with the SUX group. Absence of laryngoscopy resistance was greater in the ROC than in the SUX groups (ROC, 87.5%; SUX, 74.2%; P = 0.019), but there were no differences in vocal cord position (P = 0.45) or intubation response (P = 0.31) between groups. No statistically significant differences in incidence of anesthesia complications or in neonatal outcome were found (10-minute Apgar score <7, P = 0.07; umbilical artery pH, P = 0.43). The incidence of postpartum myalgia was greater in the SUX group (ROC 0%; SUX 6.7%; P = 0.007). The incidence of subjective complaints was lower in the ROC group (ROC, 21.4%; SUX, 37.5%; P = 0.007). We conclude that rocuronium for rapid-sequence induction is noninferior for time to tracheal intubation and is accompanied by more frequent absence of laryngoscopy resistance and lower incidence of myalgia in comparison with succinylcholine for cesarean delivery under general anesthesia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 16%
Other 9 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 28 25%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 33 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,170,530
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#5,296
of 8,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,603
of 311,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#44
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.