Evidence Hub

The Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Sugammadex and Neostigmine in Reversing Neuromuscular Blockade Inpatients with Obesity Undergoing Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Shuangwen Wang, Yanjie Dong, Shuangcheng Wang, Yang Han, Qian Li

Medicina, 2024

633 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is practiced worldwide. Sugammadex was proven to have multiple benefits in reversing neuromuscular blockade (NMB) for patients with obesity undergoing MBS, but its effects on complications of various systems are not clear and concrete. Materials and Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted as per the PRISMA guidelines and registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42023491171). A systematic search was conducted in multiple databases for studies comparing sugammadex with neostigmine in MBS. Continuous data are reported as mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Dichotomous data are reported as relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs. A two-sided p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to evaluate the reliability of the conclusions. Results: Nine studies with 633 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with those from the neostigmine group, patients from the sugammadex group were characterized by a significantly shorter recovery time from the administration of the study drug to a train-of-four (TOF) ratio of ≥90% (MD [95% CI]: −15.40 [−26.64; −4.15]; I2 = 96.6%; p = 0.0073; n = 380; random effects model), a lower risk of postoperative residual curarization (PORC) (RR [95% CI]: 0.18 [0.09; 0.38]; p < 0.0001; I2 = 27.9%; n = 344; common effect model), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (RR [95% CI]: 0.67 [0.48;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 633 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free