A modified train-of-four ratio to assess recovery from depolarizing neuromuscular blockade after succinylcholine, a prospective observational study.

Succinylcholine is still used in clinical practice. Its duration is highly variable and neuromuscular monitoring is recommended to assess its recovery. Unfortunately, depolarizing neuromuscular block cannot be evaluated by train-of-four (TOF) as no fade occurs. Only single twitch (ST) allows to monitor depolarizing block. The TOFScan monitor proposes a modified TOF ratio (T4/Tref) not referring to fade within a TOF series. We hypothesized that the T4/Tref allows to assess recovery from succinylcholine. This observational study aims to compare recovery from depolarizing block simultaneously assessed with T4/Tref and ST. After Ethics Committee approval and written informed consent 45 patients receiving a single dose of succinylcholine were included. ST recovery, measured with TOF-Watch SX, and T4/Tref recovery, measured by TOFScan, were assessed simultaneously. Difference between measurements was compared using Mann-Whitney U test and overall concordance with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The ICC was 0.85 [95% CI 0.82-0.87]. The first T4/Tref ratio ≥ 90% was 97% [95% CI 93-101%] the corresponding ST value was 91% [95% CI 87-97%]. The first T4/Tref ratio ≥ 100% was 103% [95% CI 102-107%], the corresponding ST value was 104% [95% CI 100-106%]; median [95% confidence interval of the median]. Time to recovery to 90% and 100% of baseline did not differ between ST or T4/Tref. It was10.0 [8.0-13.0] min vs 10.0 [8.0-12.0] min, P = 0.307 and 10.0 [9.0-15.0] min vs 10.0 [8.0-15.0] min, P = 0.546; respectively; median [IQR]. Agreement between both parameters was excellent. The T4/Tref can be used accurately to measure recovery from depolarizing neuromuscular block.

Epidemiology and outcome of patients admitted to intensive care after anaphylaxis in France: a retrospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on patients who have experienced anaphylaxis and were admitted to ICUs. The purpose of this observational study was to describe the epidemiology and management of these patients. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study carried out in 23 French ICUs between 2012 and 2017. All patients who suffered anaphylaxis and were transferred to an ICU were included. Data were collected using an electronic database after approval by an ethics committee. RESULTS: A total of 339 patients were included, and 17 (5%) died secondary to anaphylaxis. The main triggers were drugs (77%), contrast media (11%), and food (7%). Epinephrine was administered before ICU admission in 88% of patients with Grade III anaphylaxis and 100% of patients with Grade IV anaphylaxis. Most patients with Grades III and IV anaphylaxes did not receive the recommended dose of i.v. fluid of 30 ml kg-1 within the first 4 h of ICU admission. The time to epinephrine administration was not statistically different between survivors and non-survivors, but non-survivors received a higher dose of epinephrine (median: 5 [3-10] vs 3 [2-7] mg; P<0.0001), which suggests that some forms of anaphylactic shock may be resistant to epinephrine. In multivariate analysis, only lactate concentration at ICU admission was a predictor of death (odds ratio: 1.47 [1.15-1.88]; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Lactate concentration at ICU admission appeared to be the most reliable criterion for assessing prognosis. Epinephrine is widely used during anaphylaxis, but the volume of fluid resuscitation was consistently lower than recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04290507.