↓ Skip to main content

The influence of mild hypothermia on reversal of rocuronium-induced deep neuromuscular block with sugammadex

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
The influence of mild hypothermia on reversal of rocuronium-induced deep neuromuscular block with sugammadex
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2253-15-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hee Jong Lee, Kyo Sang Kim, Ji Seon Jeong, Kyu Nam Kim, Byeong Chan Lee

Abstract

Mild hypothermia may be frequently induced due to cool environments in the operating room. The study analyzed patient recovery time and response to sugammadex after a prolonged rocuronium-induced deep neuromuscular block (NMB) during mild hypothermia. Sixty patients were randomly (1:1) allocated to the mild hypothermia and normothermia groups, defined as having core temperatures between 34.5 - 35°C and 36.5 - 37°C, respectively. Patients received 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium, followed by 7 - 10 μg/kg/min to maintain a deep NMB [post-tetanic count (PTC) 1-2]. After surgery, the deep NMB was reversed with sugammadex 4.0 mg/kg. The primary end-point was the time until the train-of-four (TOF) ratio was 0.9. The appropriate neuromuscular function (TOF ratio ≥ 0.9) was restored after sugammadex was administered, even after hypothermia. The length of recovery in the hypothermia patients [mean (SD), 171.1 (62.1) seconds (s)] was significantly slower compared with the normothermia patients [124.9 (59.2) s] (p = 0.005). There were no adverse effects from sugammadex. Sugammadex safely and securely reversed deep rocuronium-induced NMB during mild hypothermia. An additional 46 s was required for recovery from a deep NMB in hypothermia patients. Based on the results, we think this prolonged recovery time is clinically acceptable. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01965067 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 12 57%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 14 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#990
of 1,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,078
of 351,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#19
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,496 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 351,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.