Residual neuromuscular block in the postanaesthesia care unit: a single-centre prospective observational study and systematic review.

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Veerle Bijkerk,Piet Krijtenburg,Tessa Verweijen,Jörgen Bruhn,Gert Jan Scheffer,Christiaan Keijzer,Michiel C Warlé
{"title":"Residual neuromuscular block in the postanaesthesia care unit: a single-centre prospective observational study and systematic review.","authors":"Veerle Bijkerk,Piet Krijtenburg,Tessa Verweijen,Jörgen Bruhn,Gert Jan Scheffer,Christiaan Keijzer,Michiel C Warlé","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nConcerns regarding residual neuromuscular block (RNMB) have persisted since the introduction of neuromuscular blocking agents, with reported incidences in the 21st century up to 50%. Advances in neuromuscular transmission (NMT) monitoring and the introduction of sugammadex have addressed this issue, but the impact of these developments remains unclear.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis prospective observational study evaluated RNMB in 500 surgical patients in a large Dutch teaching hospital with readily available quantitative NMT monitoring and reversal agents. The anaesthetic technique and intraoperative NMT monitoring were independently chosen by the attending anaesthesiologist. Acceleromyography was performed upon arrival in the PACU for patients who received nondepolarising neuromuscular blocking agents. RNMB was defined as a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) <0.9. A systematic review was conducted to analyse trends in RNMB in contemporary practice.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nOut of 500 patients, 11 (2.2%) had a TOFR <0.9. Intraoperative NMT monitoring was performed in 77.6% of patients, and sugammadex was administered to 38% of patients. No patient received neostigmine. The only difference was an automatically recorded TOFR ≥0.9 at the end of surgery in 61.1% in the non-RNMB group compared with 18.2% in the RNMB group (P=0.009). Our systematic review identified incidences ranging from 3.5% to 53.3% since 2000, with a decreasing trend in Europe and North America.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThe incidence of residual neuromuscular block in the PACU was 2.2%. This suggests significant improvement in the prevention of residual neuromuscular block and stresses the importance of rigorous neuromuscular transmission monitoring and adequate use of reversal agents.","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.043","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Concerns regarding residual neuromuscular block (RNMB) have persisted since the introduction of neuromuscular blocking agents, with reported incidences in the 21st century up to 50%. Advances in neuromuscular transmission (NMT) monitoring and the introduction of sugammadex have addressed this issue, but the impact of these developments remains unclear. METHODS This prospective observational study evaluated RNMB in 500 surgical patients in a large Dutch teaching hospital with readily available quantitative NMT monitoring and reversal agents. The anaesthetic technique and intraoperative NMT monitoring were independently chosen by the attending anaesthesiologist. Acceleromyography was performed upon arrival in the PACU for patients who received nondepolarising neuromuscular blocking agents. RNMB was defined as a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) <0.9. A systematic review was conducted to analyse trends in RNMB in contemporary practice. RESULTS Out of 500 patients, 11 (2.2%) had a TOFR <0.9. Intraoperative NMT monitoring was performed in 77.6% of patients, and sugammadex was administered to 38% of patients. No patient received neostigmine. The only difference was an automatically recorded TOFR ≥0.9 at the end of surgery in 61.1% in the non-RNMB group compared with 18.2% in the RNMB group (P=0.009). Our systematic review identified incidences ranging from 3.5% to 53.3% since 2000, with a decreasing trend in Europe and North America. CONCLUSIONS The incidence of residual neuromuscular block in the PACU was 2.2%. This suggests significant improvement in the prevention of residual neuromuscular block and stresses the importance of rigorous neuromuscular transmission monitoring and adequate use of reversal agents.
麻醉后护理病房的残留神经肌肉阻滞:一项单中心前瞻性观察研究和系统性综述。
背景自神经肌肉阻滞剂问世以来,有关残余神经肌肉阻滞(RNMB)的担忧一直存在,据报道,21 世纪的残余神经肌肉阻滞发生率高达 50%。这项前瞻性观察研究评估了荷兰一家大型教学医院 500 名手术患者的残余神经肌肉阻滞(RNMB)情况,该医院拥有现成的定量神经肌肉阻滞监测和逆转剂。麻醉技术和术中 NMT 监测由主治麻醉师独立选择。接受了非去极化神经肌肉阻滞剂的患者在到达 PACU 后都要进行加速肌电图检查。RNMB的定义是四次训练比值(TOFR)<0.9。结果 在 500 名患者中,有 11 人(2.2%)的四次肌电图比值(TOFR)小于 0.9。77.6%的患者进行了术中NMT监测,38%的患者使用了苏加麦司。没有患者接受新斯的明治疗。唯一的差异是手术结束时自动记录的 TOFR ≥0.9 的非 RNMB 组为 61.1%,而 RNMB 组为 18.2%(P=0.009)。我们的系统回顾发现,自 2000 年以来,发生率从 3.5% 到 53.3% 不等,欧洲和北美的发生率呈下降趋势。结论:PACU 中残余神经肌肉阻滞的发生率为 2.2%,这表明在预防残余神经肌肉阻滞方面有了重大改进,并强调了严格监测神经肌肉传递和充分使用逆转剂的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信