Cisatracurium vs. Rocuronium: A prospective, comparative, randomized study in adult patients under total intravenous anaesthesia
Language English Country Czech Republic Media print
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
17426802
DOI
10.5507/bp.2006.051
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Androstanols administration & dosage MeSH
- Atracurium administration & dosage analogs & derivatives MeSH
- Anesthesia, Intravenous MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Neuromuscular Nondepolarizing Agents administration & dosage MeSH
- Neuromuscular Blockade * MeSH
- Neuromuscular Blocking Agents administration & dosage MeSH
- Anesthesia Recovery Period MeSH
- Rocuronium MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Androstanols MeSH
- Atracurium MeSH
- cisatracurium MeSH Browser
- Neuromuscular Nondepolarizing Agents MeSH
- Neuromuscular Blocking Agents MeSH
- Rocuronium MeSH
AIMS: To compare the pharmacodynamics of cisatracurium and rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block following single dose, allowing either spontaneous or neostigmine-accelerated complete recovery. METHODS: Following the ethics committee approval and informed consent, 120 patients scheduled for elective surgery under TIVA with tracheal intubation were randomized into 4 groups with different cisatracurium (CIS, 0.10 or 0.15 mg.kg(-1)) or rocuronium (ROC, 0.60 or 0.90 mg.kg(-1)) doses administered. For each patient, the onset time for 95 % depression of T1, clinical duration until 25 % recovery, recovery index (T1 from 25 to 75 %) and time from T1 25 % to TOF-ratio 0.9 were determined allowing either spontaneous or induced recovery. RESULTS: The onset times were 277 (SD 58), 220 (46), 91 (16) and 77 (16) s for the CIS 0.10, CIS 0.15, ROC 0.60 and ROC 0.90 groups (p < 0.05), respectively, with lower variability in both ROC groups (p < 0.05). The clinical durations were 42 (7), 52 (7), 35 (11) and 52 (12) min, respectively (p < 0.05 for lower doses). Recovery index was identical in all groups allowing either spontaneous recovery - 15.9 (1.8), 15.5 (1.7), 16.1 (3.7) and 16.1 (4.0) min, or following neostigmine administration - 4.4 (0.9), 4.5 (0.8), 4.3 (0.8) and 4.7 (0.7) min for respective groups. During spontaneous recovery, the variability of DUR25-TOF90 was twice as great for ROC than CIS groups (p < 0.05), while after neostigmine administration it was uniform in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: For equipotent doses, the onset times for CIS were approximately three times longer than for ROC. The average clinical duration for both relaxants ranged from 35 to 52 min with acceptable variability. Neostigmine administration accelerated the recovery and reduced its variability. When allowing for spontaneous recovery, less scatter was demonstrated for both CIS groups than for ROC ones.
References provided by Crossref.org