Table 2 Comparison of probability of primary and secondary outcomes between sugammadex use and neostigmine use, before and after adjusting for confounding by sIPTW, in the total cohort.

From: Effects of sugammadex versus neostigmine on postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia in adult patients:a single-center retrospective study

Primary outcome

Before sIPTW

After sIPTWa

Sugammadex (n = 5918)

Neostigmine (n = 4994)

Odds ratiob (95% CI)

P value

Sugammadex (n = 5928)

Neostigmine (n = 4736)

Odds ratiob (95% CI)

P value

Overall PONV (within 24 h)

964 (16.3)

898 (18.0)

0.89 (0.80–0.98)

0.019

936 (15.8)

837 (17.7)

0.87 (0.79–0.97)

0.010

Secondary outcome

Sugammadex (n = 5918)

Neostigmine (n = 4994)

Odds ratiob (98.3% CI)

P valuec

Sugammadex (n = 5928)

Neostigmine (n = 4736)

Odds ratiob (98.3% CI)

P valuec

Early PONV (0–2 h)

427 (7.2)

499 (10)

0.70 (0.59–0.83)

 < 0.001

453 (7.6)

460 (9.7)

0.77 (0.65–0.91)

 < 0.001

Delayed PONV (2–24 h)

687 (11.6)

592 (11.9)

0.98 (0.85–1.13)

0.691

655 (11)

563 (11.9)

0.92 (0.80–1.06)

0.171

Antiemetic use (within 24 h)

732 (12.4)

680 (13.6)

0.90 (0.78–1.03)

0.053

700 (11.8)

679 (14.3)

0.80 (0.70–0.92)

 < 0.001

  1. CI Confidence interval, PONV Postoperative nausea and vomiting, sIPTW, stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting.
  2. aStabilized weights are used to adjust for confounding.
  3. bOdds ratios estimate the probability of the given outcome in patients who received sugammadex versus patients who received neostigmine for each outcome.
  4. cStatistical significance corrected by the Bonferroni correction to adjust for increased type I error by multiple testing (P < 0.05/3 = 0.017).
Back to article page