The development of new medical technologies and pharmaceuticals always rekindles battles between improving quality of care (which assumes clinical effectiveness) and maintaining affordability. The introduction of sugammadex into clinical practice was naturally hailed as a huge advance in the clinicians’ ability to better manage aminosteroid nondepolarizing block. While the superiority of sugammadex over neostigmine in short-term biologic benefits such as the speed and reliability of neuromuscular antagonism, particularly from deep and profound levels of block, was never in doubt, clinically relevant, longer-term outcomes that may impact healthcare costs, such as the effects of sugammadex-induced antagonism on patients’ postoperative lung function, have been less obvious and based on “beliefs.” The debate of whether sugammadex helps in these “outcomes that matter” is important both clinically and financially.

In this issue of the journal, a retrospective registry analysis explores the...

You do not currently have access to this content.