Comparison of visual and electromyographic assessments with train-of-four stimulation of the ulnar nerve: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The use of a peripheral nerve stimulator to assess the level of neuromuscular blockade tasks the anesthesia clinician with subjectively assessing the response to neurostimulation. In contrast, objective neuromuscular monitors provide quantitative information. The purpose of this study was to compare subjective evaluations from a peripheral nerve stimulator with objective measurements of neurostimulation responses from a quantitative monitor. METHODS: Patients were enrolled preoperatively, and intraoperative neuromuscular blockade management was at the discretion of the anesthesiologist. Electromyography electrodes were placed over the dominant or nondominant arm in a randomized fashion. Following onset of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade, the ulnar nerve was stimulated, the response was measured with electromyography, and anesthesia clinicians, who were blinded to the objective measurements, subjectively (visually) evaluated the response to neurostimulation. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled and 666 neurostimulations were performed at 333 different time points. Anesthesia clinicians subjectively overestimated the response of the adductor pollicis muscle following neurostimulation of the ulnar nerve 155/333 (47%) of the time when compared with objective electromyographic measurements. When subjective evaluations and objective measurements differed to any degree, subjective evaluations were higher than objective measurements 155/166 (92%) of the time (95% CI, 87 to 95; P < 0.001), representing significant evidence that subjective evaluation overestimates the response to train-of-four stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective observations of a "twitch" do not consistently correspond to objective measurements of neuromuscular blockade with electromyography. Subjective evaluation overestimates the response to neurostimulation and may be unreliable for determining the depth of block or confirming adequate recovery.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Lors de l'utilisation d'un stimulateur nerveux périphérique pour évaluer le niveau de bloc neuromusculaire, le clinicien en anesthésie doit évaluer de manière subjective la réponse à la neurostimulation. Les moniteurs neuromusculaires objectifs fournissent quant à eux des informations quantitatives. L'objectif de cette étude était de comparer les évaluations subjectives d'un stimulateur nerveux périphérique avec des mesures objectives des réponses de neurostimulation provenant d'un moniteur quantitatif. MéTHODE: Les patients ont été recrutés avant leur opération, et la gestion du bloc neuromusculaire peropératoire était à la discrétion de l'anesthésiologiste. Des électrodes d'électromyographie ont été placées sur le bras dominant ou non dominant de manière aléatoire. Après l'amorce du bloc neuromusculaire non dépolarisant, le nerf cubital a été stimulé, la réponse a été mesurée par électromyographie, et les cliniciens en anesthésie, qui n'avaient pas accès aux mesures objectives, ont évalué subjectivement (visuellement) la réponse à la neurostimulation. RéSULTATS: Cinquante patients ont été recrutés et 666 neurostimulations ont été réalisées à 333 moments différents. Les cliniciens en anesthésie ont subjectivement surestimé la réponse du muscle adducteur du pouce après neurostimulation du nerf cubital 155/333 (47 %) fois par rapport aux mesures électromyographiques objectives. Lorsque les évaluations subjectives et les mesures objectives différaient à quelque degré que ce soit, les évaluations subjectives étaient plus élevées que les mesures objectives 155/166 (92 %) du temps (IC 95 %, 87 à 95; P < 0,001), ce qui représente une preuve significative que l'évaluation subjective surestime la réponse à la stimulation par train-de-quatre. CONCLUSION: Les observations subjectives d'une « contraction ¼ ne correspondent pas systématiquement aux mesures objectives d'un bloc neuromusculaire telles qu'obtenues par électromyographie. L'évaluation subjective surestime la réponse à la neurostimulation et pourrait ne pas être fiable pour déterminer la profondeur du bloc ou confirmer une récupération adéquate.

[Deep neuromuscular blockade : Benefits and risks]. / Vollrelaxation : Nutzen und Risiken.

Neuromuscular blockade (TOF count = 0) can improve tracheal intubation and microlaryngeal surgery. It is also frequently used in many surgical fields including both nonlaparoscopic and laparoscopic surgery to improve surgical conditions and to prevent sudden muscle contractions. Currently there is a controversy regarding the need and the clinical benefits of deep neuromuscular blockade for different surgical procedures. Deep neuromuscular relaxation improves laparoscopic surgical space conditions only marginally when using low intra-abdominal pressure. There is no outcome-relevant advantage of low compared to higher intra-abdominal pressures, but worsen the surgical conditions. Postoperative, residual curarisation can be avoided by algorithm-based pharmacological reversing and quantitative neuromuscular monitoring.

Use of protocol and evaluation of postoperative residual curarization incidence in the absence of intraoperative acceleromyography - Randomized clinical trial / Aplicação de protocolo e avaliação da incidência de curarização residual pós-operatória na ausência de aceleromiografia intraoperatória - Ensaio clínico randomizado

Abstract Objective Evaluate the incidence of postoperative residual curarization (PORC) in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) after the use of protocol and absence of intraoperative acceleromyography (AMG). Methods Randomized clinical trial with 122 patients allocated into two groups (protocol and control). Protocol group received initial and additional doses of rocuronium (0.6 mg·kg-1 and 10 mg, respectively); the use of rocuronium was avoided in the final 45 min; blockade reversal with neostigmine (50 µg·kg-1); time ≥15 min between reversion and extubation. Control: initial and additional doses of rocuronium, blockade reversal, neostigmine dose, and extubation time, all at the discretion of the anesthesiologist. AMG was used in the PACU and PORC considered at T4/T1 ratio <1.0. Results The incidence of PORC was lower in protocol group than in control group (25% vs. 45.2%, p = 0.02). In control group, total dose of rocuronium was higher in patients with PORC than without PORC (0.43 vs. 0.35 mg·kg-1·h-1, p = 0.03) and the time interval between the last administration of rocuronium and neostigmine was lower (75.0 vs. 101.0 min, p < 0.01). In protocol group, there was no difference regarding the analyzed parameters (with PORC vs. without PORC). Considering the entire study population and the presence or absence of PORC, total dose of rocuronium was higher in patients with PORC (0.42 vs. 0.31 mg·kg-1·h-1, p = 0.01), while the time interval between the last administration of rocuronium and neostigmine was lower (72.5 vs. 99.0 min, p ≤ 0.01). Conclusion The proposed systematization reduced PORC incidence in PACU in the absence of intraoperative AMG.

Resumo Objetivo Avaliou-se a incidência de curarização residual pós-operatória (CRPO) na sala de recuperação pós-anestésica (SRPA) após emprego de protocolo e ausência de aceleromiografia (AMG) intraoperatória. Métodos Ensaio clínico, aleatório, com 122 pacientes, distribuídas em dois grupos: protocolo e controle. Protocolo: dose inicial e adicionais de rocurônio foram de 0,6 mg.kg-1 e 10 mg, respectivamente; evitou-se o uso de rocurônio nos 45 minutos finais; reversão do bloqueio com neostigmina (50 µg.kg-1); tempo ≥ 15 minutos entre reversão e extubação. Controle: doses inicial e adicional de rocurônio, reversão do bloqueio, dose de neostigmina e momento da extubação decididos pelo anestesiologista. Foi usada AMG na SRPA e considerado CRPO razão T4/T1 < 1,0. Resultados A incidência de CRPO foi menor no grupo protocolo em relação ao controle (25% vs. 45,2%; p = 0,02). No grupo controle, a dose total de rocurônio foi maior em pacientes com CRPO em relação àqueles sem CRPO (0,43 vs. 0,35 mg.kg-1.h-1; p = 0,03) e o intervalo entre a última administração de rocurônio e a neostigmina foi menor (75,0 vs. 101,0 min; p < 0,01). No grupo protocolo não houve diferença dos parâmetros analisados (com CRPO vs. sem CRPO). Considerando toda a população de estudo e a presença ou não de CRPO, a dose total de rocurônio foi maior em pacientes com CRPO (0,42 vs. 0,31 mg.kg-1.h-1; p = 0,01), enquanto o intervalo entre a última administração de rocurônio e a neostigmina foi menor (72,5 vs. 99,0 min; p ≤ 0,01). Conclusão A sistematização proposta reduziu a incidência de CRPO na SRPA na ausência de AMG intraoperatória.

Improving Neuromuscular Monitoring and Reducing Residual Neuromuscular Blockade With E-Learning: Protocol for the Multicenter Interrupted Time Series INVERT Study.

BACKGROUND: Muscle relaxants facilitate endotracheal intubation under general anesthesia and improve surgical conditions. Residual neuromuscular blockade occurs when the patient is still partially paralyzed when awakened after surgery. The condition is associated with subjective discomfort and an increased risk of respiratory complications. Use of an objective neuromuscular monitoring device may prevent residual block. Despite this, many anesthetists refrain from using the device. Efforts to increase the use of objective monitoring are time consuming and require the presence of expert personnel. A neuromuscular monitoring e-learning module might support consistent use of neuromuscular monitoring devices. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to assess the effect of a neuromuscular monitoring e-learning module on anesthesia staff's use of objective neuromuscular monitoring and the incidence of residual neuromuscular blockade in surgical patients at 6 Danish teaching hospitals. METHODS: In this interrupted time series study, we are collecting data repeatedly, in consecutive 3-week periods, before and after the intervention, and we will analyze the effect using segmented regression analysis. Anesthesia departments in the Zealand Region of Denmark are included, and data from all patients receiving a muscle relaxant are collected from the anesthesia information management system MetaVision. We will assess the effect of the module on all levels of potential effect: staff's knowledge and skills, patient care practice, and patient outcomes. The primary outcome is use of neuromuscular monitoring in patients according to the type of muscle relaxant received. Secondary outcomes include last recorded train-of-four value, administration of reversal agents, and time to discharge from the postanesthesia care unit as well as a multiple-choice test to assess knowledge. The e-learning module was developed based on a needs assessment process, including focus group interviews, surveys, and expert opinions. RESULTS: The e-learning module was implemented in 6 anesthesia departments on 21 November 2016. Currently, we are collecting postintervention data. The final dataset will include data from more than 10,000 anesthesia procedures. We expect to publish the results in late 2017 or early 2018. CONCLUSIONS: With a dataset consisting of thousands of general anesthesia procedures, the INVERT study will assess whether an e-learning module can increase anesthetists' use of neuromuscular monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02925143; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02925143 (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6s50iTV2x).

[Use of protocol and evaluation of postoperative residual curarization incidence in the absence of intraoperative acceleromyography - Randomized clinical trial]. / Aplicação de protocolo e avaliação da incidência de curarização residual pós­operatória na ausência de aceleromiografia intraoperatória ­ Ensaio clínico randomizado.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the incidence of postoperative residual curarization (PORC) in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) after the use of protocol and absence of intraoperative acceleromyography (AMG). METHODS: Randomized clinical trial with 122 patients allocated into two groups (protocol and control). Protocol group received initial and additional doses of rocuronium (0.6mg.kg-1 and 10mg, respectively); the use of rocuronium was avoided in the final 45minutes; blockade reversal with neostigmine (50µg.kg-1); time ≥ 15minutes between reversion and extubation. CONTROL: initial and additional doses of rocuronium, blockade reversal, neostigmine dose, and extubation time, all at the discretion of the anesthesiologist. AMG was used in the PACU and PORC considered at T4/T1 ratio<1.0. RESULTS: The incidence of PORC was lower in protocol group than in control group (25% vs. 45.2%, p=0.02). In control group, total dose of rocuronium was higher in patients with PORC than without PORC (0.43 vs. 0.35mg.kg-1.h-1, p=0.03) and the time interval between the last administration of rocuronium and neostigmine was lower (75.0 vs. 101.0min, p<0.01). In protocol group, there was no difference regarding the analyzed parameters (with PORC vs. without PORC). Considering the entire study population and the presence or absence of PORC, total dose of rocuronium was higher in patients with PORC (0.42 vs. 0.31mg.kg-1.h-1, p=0.01), while the time interval between the last administration of rocuronium and neostigmine was lower (72.5 vs. 99.0min, p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: The proposed systematization reduced PORC incidence in PACU in the absence of intraoperative AMG.

Sugammadex and neostigmine dose-finding study for reversal of residual neuromuscular block at a train-of-four ratio of 0.2 (SUNDRO20)†,.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this dose-finding study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship of sugammadex and neostigmine to reverse a commonly observed level of incomplete recovery from rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block, that is, a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) ≥0.2. METHODS: Ninety-nine anaesthetized patients received rocuronium 0.6 mg kg(-1) i.v. for tracheal intubation and, if necessary, incremental doses of 0.1-0.2 mg kg(-1). Neuromuscular monitoring was performed by calibrated electromyography. Once the TOFR recovered to 0.2, patients were randomized to receive sugammadex (0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, or 1.25 mg kg(-1) i.v.), neostigmine (10, 25, 40, 55, or 70 µg kg(-1) i.v.), or saline (n=9 per group). Primary and secondary end points were the doses necessary to restore neuromuscular function to a TOFR≥0.9 with an upper limit of 5 and 10 min for 95% of patients, respectively. RESULTS: Neostigmine was not able to fulfil the end points. Based on the best-fitting model, the sugammadex dose estimation for recovery to a TOFR≥0.9 for 95% of patients within 5 and 10 min was 0.49 and 0.26 mg kg(-1), respectively. CONCLUSION: A residual neuromuscular block of a TOFR of 0.2 cannot be reversed reliably with neostigmine within 10 min. In the conditions studied, substantially lower doses of sugammadex than the approved dose of 2.0 mg kg(-1) may be sufficient to reverse residual rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block at a recovery of TOFR≥0.2. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01006720.

Postoperative impairment of motor function at train-of-four ratio ≥0.9 cannot be improved by sugammadex (1 mg kg-1).

BACKGROUND: A train-of-four ratio (TOFR) ≥0.9 measured by quantitative neuromuscular monitoring is accepted as an indication of sufficient neuromuscular recovery for extubation, even though many postsynaptic acetylcholine receptors may still be inhibited. We investigated whether antagonism with sugammadex after spontaneous recovery to TOFR≥0.9 further improves muscle function or subjective well-being. METHODS: Following recovery to TOFR≥0.9 and emergence from anaesthesia, 300 patients randomly received either sugammadex 1.0 mg kg(-1) or placebo. Fine motor function (Purdue Pegboard Test) and maximal voluntary grip strength were measured before and after surgery (before and after test drug administration). At discharge from the postanaesthesia care unit, well-being was assessed with numerical analogue scales and the Quality-of-Recovery Score 40 (QoR-40). RESULTS: Patients' fine motor function [6 (sd 4) vs 15 (3) pegs (30 s)(-1), P<0.05] and maximal voluntary grip strength (284 (126) vs 386 (125) N, P<0.05) were significantly lower after anaesthesia compared with the pre-anaesthesia baseline. After sugammadex or placebo, motor function was significantly improved in both groups but did not reach the preoperative level. There was no difference between groups at any time. Global well-being was unaffected (QoR-40: placebo, 174 vs 185; sugammadex, 175 vs 186, P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Antagonizing rocuronium at TOF≥0.9 with sugammadex 1.0 mg kg(-) (1) did not improve patients' motor function or well-being when compared with placebo. Our data support the view that TOFR≥0.9 measured by electromyography signifies sufficient recovery of neuromuscular function. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01101139).