Table_4_Impact of Succinylcholine vs. Rocuronium on Apnea Duration for Rapid Sequence Induction: A Prospective Cohort Study.docx
The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of 1.5 mg/kg succinylcholine or 1.2 mg/kg rocuronium, vs. 1.0 mg/kg succinylcholine on apnea duration in patients underwent rapid sequence induction (RSI).
MethodsThis prospective cohort study was conducted in the Department of Anesthesiology in Shanghai General Hospital from July 2020 to November 2020. Apnea duration was defined as the time from apnea prompted by the PETCO2 waveform to the time the point of oxygen saturation declined to 90% (T90) and 95% (T95) after succinylcholine or rocuronium administration. The primary outcome included T90 and T95 changes in 1.5 mg/kg vs. 1.0 mg/kg succinylcholine groups and 1.5 mg/kg succinylcholine vs. 1.2 mg/kg rocuronium groups.
ResultsA total of 265 participants were subjected for analysis. The succinylcholine (1.0 mg/kg) group had a significantly longer T90 (50.72, 95% confidence interval [CI, 7.60, 94.38], P = 0.015) and T95 (48.09, 95% CI [7.11, 89.07], P = 0.012) than the succinylcholine (1.5 mg/kg) group. In addition, significantly longer T90 (56.84, 95% CI [16.24, 97.44], P = 0.003) and T95 (50.57, 95% CI [12.58, 88.57], P = 0.003) were observed in the rocuronium (1.2 mg/kg) group than those in the succinylcholine (1.5 mg/kg) group. No severe side events were observed during the operation.
ConclusionRocuronium and the lower dose of succinylcholine may be recommended to patients underwent RSI.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1365-2044.1951.tb01388.x
- https://doi.org//10.1177/003591574603900716
- https://doi.org//10.1056/NEJM195210162471603
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00000542-198010000-00027
- https://doi.org//10.1093/bja/59.1.46
- https://doi.org//10.1111/anae.13903
- https://doi.org//10.1001/jama.2019.18254
- https://doi.org//10.1097/ALN.0b013e31819dabb0
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06455.x
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.03615.x
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00000542-200506000-00009
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00000542-200501000-00009
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1399-6576.2010.02365.x
- https://doi.org//10.1213/ANE.0000000000001197
- https://doi.org//10.1034/j.1399-6576.1999.430102.x
- https://doi.org//10.1213/01.ANE.0000180196.58567.FE
- https://doi.org//10.1034/j.1399-6576.2003.00052.x
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1399-6576.2007.01352.x
- https://doi.org//10.1002/14651858.CD002788.pub3
- https://doi.org//10.1111/acem.13274
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06243.x
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00000542-197310000-00023
- https://doi.org//10.4103/0019-5049.96309
Usage metrics
Read the peer-reviewed publication
Categories
- Radiology and Organ Imaging
- Foetal Development and Medicine
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Primary Health Care
- Medical and Health Sciences not elsewhere classified
- Dermatology
- Emergency Medicine
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology
- Geriatrics and Gerontology
- Intensive Care
- Medical Genetics (excl. Cancer Genetics)
- Nephrology and Urology
- Nuclear Medicine
- Orthopaedics
- Otorhinolaryngology
- Pathology (excl. Oral Pathology)
- Family Care