Optimised reversal without train-of-four monitoring versus reversal using quantitative train-of-four monitoring: An equivalence study

Ardyan Wardhana, Juni Kurniawaty, Yusmein Uyun, Ardyan Wardhana, Juni Kurniawaty, Yusmein Uyun

Abstract

Background and aims: Less residual paralysis in recovery room was demonstrated when train-of-four (TOF) monitoring was applied. The aim of this study was to know whether optimisation of neostigmine reversal without TOF monitoring was equivalent to reversal using TOF monitoring.

Methods: Seventy two patients, aged 18-60 years, undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia (sevoflurane and rocuronium) with intubation were randomised into two interventions: an optimised neostigmine reversal strategy without TOF monitoring (group A, n = 36) and a neostigmine reversal strategy using quantitative TOF monitoring (group B, n = 36). Per-protocol analysis was performed to compare incidence of residual paralysis in the recovery room between the two groups.

Results: Six residual paralyses occurred in group A in the recovery room, whereas one case occurred in group B. The equivalence test showed that the 95% confidence interval of this study was outside the range of equivalence margin (15%). The absolute difference was 13.9%: standard error (SE) =0.068 (P = 0.107; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1%, 27.2%). No subjects had TOF ratio <0.70 in the recovery room. The TOF ratio in the recovery room did not differ between the two groups (mean difference: -2.58; P = 0.05; 95% CI: -5.20, 0.29). One respiratory adverse event occurred in this study.

Conclusion: An optimised reversal strategy without TOF monitoring is not equivalent to a reversal strategy based on quantitative TOF monitoring. TOF monitoring should be used whenever applicable, although neostigmine is optimised.

Keywords: Neostigmine; residual paralysis; reversal; rocuronium; train-of-four.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Reversal management after group allocation revealed at the start of skin closure
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow diagram of the progress of this study
Figure 3
Figure 3
Hypothetical test of equivalence in this study

References

    1. Fortier LP, McKeen D, Turner K, de Médicis É, Warriner B, Jones PM, et al. The RECITE Study: A Canadian prospective, multicenter study of the incidence and severity of residual neuromuscular blockade. Anesth Analg. 2015;121:366–72.
    1. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Marymont JH, Greenberg SB, Avram MJ, Vender JS. Residual neuromuscular blockade and critical respiratory events in the postanesthesia care unit. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:130–7.
    1. Butterly A, Bittner EA, George E, Sandberg WS, Eikermann M, Schmidt U. Postoperative residual curarization from intermediate-acting neuromuscular blocking agents delays recovery room discharge. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105:304–9.
    1. Kopman AF. Managing neuromuscular block where are the guidelines. Anesth Analg. 2010;11:9–10.
    1. Gatke MR, Viby-Mogensen J, Rosenstock C, Jensen FS, Skovgaard LT. Postoperative muscle paralysis after rocuronium: Less residual block when acceleromyography is used. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002;46:207–13.
    1. Murphy GS, Szokolm JW, Avram MJ, Greenberg SB, Marymont JH, Vender JS, et al. Intraoperative acceleromyography monitoring reduces symptoms of muscle weakness and improves quality of recovery in the early postoperative period. Anesthesiology. 2011;115:946–54.
    1. Naguib M, Kopman AF, Lien CA, Hunter JM, Lopez A, Brull SJ. A survey of current management of neuromuscular block in the United States and Europe. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:110–9.
    1. Grayling M, Sweeney BP. Recovery from neuromuscular blockade: A survey of practice. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:806–9.
    1. Thilen SR, Bhananker SM. Qualitative neuromuscular monitoring how to optimize the use peripheral nerve stimulator to reduce the risk of residual neuromuscular blockade. Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2016;6:164–9.
    1. Kopman AF. Residual neuromuscular blockade and adverse postoperative outcomes: An update. Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2016;6:178–84.
    1. Meyer MJ, Bateman BT, Kurth T, Eikermann M. Neostigmine reversal doesn't improve postoperative respiratory safety. BMJ. 2013;346:f1460.
    1. Donati F. Neuromuscular blocking drugs for the new millennium: Current practice, future trends—comparative pharmacology of neuromuscular blocking drugs. Anesth Analg. 2000;90:S2–S6.
    1. Brull SJ, Kopman AF. Current status of neuromuscular reversal and monitoring challenges and opportunities. Anesthesiol J Am Soc Anesthesiol. 2017;126:173–90.
    1. Sturgill E.L., Campbell N.F. Neuromuscular blocking and reversal agents. In: Barash P.G., Cullen B.F., Stoelting R.K., editors. Basic clinical anesthesia. 5th ed. New York: Springer; 2015. pp. 151–8.
    1. Naguib M, Brull SJ, Kopman AF, Hunter JF, Fülesdi B, Arkes HR, et al. Consensus statement on perioperative use of neuromuscular monitoring. Anesth Analg. 2018;127:71–80.
    1. Gatke MR, Viby-Mogensen J, Rosenstock C, Jensen FS, Skovgaard LT. Postoperative muscle paralysis after rocuronium: Less residual block when acceleromyography is used. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002;46:207–13.
    1. Nemes R, Fulesdi B, Pongracz A, Asztalos l, SzaboMaak Z, Lengyel S, et al. Impact of reversal strategies on the incidence of postoperative residual paralysis after rocuronium relaxation without neuromuscular monitoring: A partially randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34:609–16.
    1. Goldhill DR, Wainwright AP, Stuart CS, Flynn PJ. Neostigmine after spontaneous recovery from neuromuscular blockade. Effect on depth of blockade monitored with train-of-four and tetanic stimuli. Anaesthesia. 1989;44:293–9.
    1. Caldwell JE. Reversal of residual neuromuscular block with neostigmine at one to four hours after a single intubating dose of vecuronium. Anesth Analg. 1995;80:1168–74.
    1. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Avram MJ, Greenberg SB, Shear TD, Deshur MA, et al. Neostigmine administration after spontaneous recovery to a train-of-four ratio of 0.9 to 1.0: A randomized controlled trial of the effect on neuromuscular and clinical recovery. Anesthesiology. 2018;128:27–37.
    1. Geldner G, Niskanen M, Laurila P, Mizikov V, Hübler M, Beck G, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing sugammadex and neostigmine at different depths of neuromuscular blockade in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:991–8.
    1. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Marymont JH, Franklin M, Avram MJ, Vender JS. Residual paralysis at the time of tracheal extubation. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:1840–5.
    1. Blobner M, Eriksson LI, Scholz J, Motsch J, Della Rocca G, Prins ME. Reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex compared with neostigmine during sevoflurane anaesthesia: Results of a randomized, controlled trial. Eur J Anesthesiol. 2010;27:874–81.
    1. Tajaate N, Schreiber J, Fuchs-Buder T, Jelting Y, Kranke P. Neostigmine-based reversal of intermediate acting neuromuscular blocking agents to prevent postoperative residual paralysis: A systematic review. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34:1–9.
    1. Bourgain JL, Debaene B, Meistelman C, Donati F. Respiratory mechanics in anaesthetized patients after neostigmine-atropine. A comparison between patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1993;37:365–9.
    1. Helbo-Hansen HS, Bang U, Nielson HK, Skovgaard LT. The accuracy of train of four monitoring at various stimulation currents. Anesthesiology. 1992;76:199–203.
    1. Fisher DM, Castagnoli K, Miller RD. Vecuronium kinetics and dynamics in anesthetized infants and children. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1985;37:402–6.
    1. Suzuki T, Kitajima O, Ueda K, Kondo Y, Kato J, Ogawa S. Reversibility of rocuronium induced profound neuromuscular block with sugammadex in younger and older patients. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:823–6.
    1. Heier T, Caldwell JE. Impact of hypothermia on the response to neuromuscular blocking drugs. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:1070–80.
    1. Claudius C, Skovgaard LT, Viby-Mogensen J. Is the performance of acceleromyography improved with preload and normalization? A comparison with mechanomyography. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:1261–70.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다