Cyrus Motamed, Bernard Trillat, Marc Fischler, Morgan le Guen, Jean Louis Bourgain
{"title":"使用新斯的明和苏加麦克斯逆转神经肌肉阻滞:在两个使用不同类型神经肌肉监测的中心进行的回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Cyrus Motamed, Bernard Trillat, Marc Fischler, Morgan le Guen, Jean Louis Bourgain","doi":"10.1007/s10877-024-01192-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This bicentric retrospective cohort study evaluates reversal of muscle relaxation in real life achieved either by neostigmine or sugammadex in two hospitals using different types of neuromuscular monitoring (acceleromyography and kinemyography). The research question concerns compliance with recommendations. Patients who underwent an abdominal surgery under general anesthesia in the period from January 2017 through December 2020 with a neuromuscular block with rocuronium were included in the study. Data were extracted from the Centricity anesthesia information management system. In total, 2242 patients were assessed: 459 in center 1 (61 having received neostigmine and 398 sugammadex) and 1783 in center 2 (531 and 1252, respectively). Patients' characteristics differed between centers, with more high-risk patients in center 1. The mean train-of-four (TOF) ratio after supramaximal current determination (supramaximal threshold) was higher in center 1 (p < 0.001). Most patients received neostigmine while the TOF ratio was < 40% (68.6% in center 1 and 62.4% in center 2), while extubation was performed while the TOF ratio was > 90% in 61.0% in center 1 and in 32.1% in center 2 (p < 0.001). Patients received sugammadex irrespective of the number of responses to TOF before reversal, and extubation was performed while the TOF ratio was > 90% in 85.0% in center 1 and in 53.6% in center 2 (p < 0.001). No side effect was encountered. Despite guidelines for the TOF ratio before extubation, recommendations were not adequately respected and more vigilance is mandatory. The TOF test before use gave values that were 100% far apart with an underestimation with acceleromyography and an overestimation using kinemyography.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":"141-148"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reversal of neuromuscular block with neostigmine and sugammadex: a retrospective cohort study in two centers using different types of neuromuscular monitoring.\",\"authors\":\"Cyrus Motamed, Bernard Trillat, Marc Fischler, Morgan le Guen, Jean Louis Bourgain\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10877-024-01192-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This bicentric retrospective cohort study evaluates reversal of muscle relaxation in real life achieved either by neostigmine or sugammadex in two hospitals using different types of neuromuscular monitoring (acceleromyography and kinemyography). The research question concerns compliance with recommendations. Patients who underwent an abdominal surgery under general anesthesia in the period from January 2017 through December 2020 with a neuromuscular block with rocuronium were included in the study. Data were extracted from the Centricity anesthesia information management system. In total, 2242 patients were assessed: 459 in center 1 (61 having received neostigmine and 398 sugammadex) and 1783 in center 2 (531 and 1252, respectively). Patients' characteristics differed between centers, with more high-risk patients in center 1. The mean train-of-four (TOF) ratio after supramaximal current determination (supramaximal threshold) was higher in center 1 (p < 0.001). Most patients received neostigmine while the TOF ratio was < 40% (68.6% in center 1 and 62.4% in center 2), while extubation was performed while the TOF ratio was > 90% in 61.0% in center 1 and in 32.1% in center 2 (p < 0.001). Patients received sugammadex irrespective of the number of responses to TOF before reversal, and extubation was performed while the TOF ratio was > 90% in 85.0% in center 1 and in 53.6% in center 2 (p < 0.001). No side effect was encountered. Despite guidelines for the TOF ratio before extubation, recommendations were not adequately respected and more vigilance is mandatory. The TOF test before use gave values that were 100% far apart with an underestimation with acceleromyography and an overestimation using kinemyography.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15513,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"141-148\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01192-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01192-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reversal of neuromuscular block with neostigmine and sugammadex: a retrospective cohort study in two centers using different types of neuromuscular monitoring.
This bicentric retrospective cohort study evaluates reversal of muscle relaxation in real life achieved either by neostigmine or sugammadex in two hospitals using different types of neuromuscular monitoring (acceleromyography and kinemyography). The research question concerns compliance with recommendations. Patients who underwent an abdominal surgery under general anesthesia in the period from January 2017 through December 2020 with a neuromuscular block with rocuronium were included in the study. Data were extracted from the Centricity anesthesia information management system. In total, 2242 patients were assessed: 459 in center 1 (61 having received neostigmine and 398 sugammadex) and 1783 in center 2 (531 and 1252, respectively). Patients' characteristics differed between centers, with more high-risk patients in center 1. The mean train-of-four (TOF) ratio after supramaximal current determination (supramaximal threshold) was higher in center 1 (p < 0.001). Most patients received neostigmine while the TOF ratio was < 40% (68.6% in center 1 and 62.4% in center 2), while extubation was performed while the TOF ratio was > 90% in 61.0% in center 1 and in 32.1% in center 2 (p < 0.001). Patients received sugammadex irrespective of the number of responses to TOF before reversal, and extubation was performed while the TOF ratio was > 90% in 85.0% in center 1 and in 53.6% in center 2 (p < 0.001). No side effect was encountered. Despite guidelines for the TOF ratio before extubation, recommendations were not adequately respected and more vigilance is mandatory. The TOF test before use gave values that were 100% far apart with an underestimation with acceleromyography and an overestimation using kinemyography.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine.
The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group.
The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.