在定量神经肌肉监测的指导下使用罗库溴铵管理肌肉松弛并使用新斯的明或舒加马德克斯逆转。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anesthesia and analgesia Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-12 DOI:10.1213/ANE.0000000000006511
Stephan R Thilen, James R Sherpa, Adrienne M James, Kevin C Cain, Miriam M Treggiari, Sanjay M Bhananker
{"title":"在定量神经肌肉监测的指导下使用罗库溴铵管理肌肉松弛并使用新斯的明或舒加马德克斯逆转。","authors":"Stephan R Thilen, James R Sherpa, Adrienne M James, Kevin C Cain, Miriam M Treggiari, Sanjay M Bhananker","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000006511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal pharmacological reversal strategy for neuromuscular blockade remains undefined even in the setting of strong recommendations for quantitative neuromuscular monitoring by several national and international anesthesiology societies. We evaluated a protocol for managing rocuronium blockade and reversal, using quantitative monitoring to guide choice of reversal agent and to confirm full reversal before extubation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective cohort study and enrolled 200 patients scheduled for elective surgery involving the intraoperative use of rocuronium. Providers were asked to adhere to a protocol that was similar to local practice recommendations for neuromusculalr block reversal that had been used for >2 years; the protocol added quantitative monitoring that had not previously been routinely used at our institution. In this study, providers used electromyography-based quantitative monitoring. Pharmacological reversal was accomplished with neostigmine if the train-of-four (TOF) ratio was 0.40 to 0.89 and with sugammadex for deeper levels of blockade. The primary end point was the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (PRNB), defined as TOF ratio <0.9 at time of extubation. We further evaluated the difference in pharmacy costs had all patients been treated with sugammadex.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 189 patients completed the study: 66 patients (35%) were reversed with neostigmine, 90 patients (48%) with sugammadex, and 33 (17%) patients recovered spontaneously without pharmacological reversal. The overall incidence of residual paralysis was 0% (95% CI, 0-1.9). The total acquisition cost for all reversal drugs was United States dollar (USD) 11,358 (USD 60 per patient) while the cost would have been USD 19,312 (USD 103 per patient, 70% higher) if sugammadex had been used in all patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A protocol that includes quantitative monitoring to guide reversal with neostigmine or sugammadex and to confirm TOF ratio ≥0.9 before extubation resulted in the complete prevention of PRNB. With current pricing of drugs, the selective use of sugammadex reduced the total cost of reversal drugs compared to the projected cost associated with routine use of sugammadex for all patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management of Muscle Relaxation With Rocuronium and Reversal With Neostigmine or Sugammadex Guided by Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring.\",\"authors\":\"Stephan R Thilen, James R Sherpa, Adrienne M James, Kevin C Cain, Miriam M Treggiari, Sanjay M Bhananker\",\"doi\":\"10.1213/ANE.0000000000006511\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal pharmacological reversal strategy for neuromuscular blockade remains undefined even in the setting of strong recommendations for quantitative neuromuscular monitoring by several national and international anesthesiology societies. We evaluated a protocol for managing rocuronium blockade and reversal, using quantitative monitoring to guide choice of reversal agent and to confirm full reversal before extubation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective cohort study and enrolled 200 patients scheduled for elective surgery involving the intraoperative use of rocuronium. Providers were asked to adhere to a protocol that was similar to local practice recommendations for neuromusculalr block reversal that had been used for >2 years; the protocol added quantitative monitoring that had not previously been routinely used at our institution. In this study, providers used electromyography-based quantitative monitoring. Pharmacological reversal was accomplished with neostigmine if the train-of-four (TOF) ratio was 0.40 to 0.89 and with sugammadex for deeper levels of blockade. The primary end point was the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (PRNB), defined as TOF ratio <0.9 at time of extubation. We further evaluated the difference in pharmacy costs had all patients been treated with sugammadex.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 189 patients completed the study: 66 patients (35%) were reversed with neostigmine, 90 patients (48%) with sugammadex, and 33 (17%) patients recovered spontaneously without pharmacological reversal. The overall incidence of residual paralysis was 0% (95% CI, 0-1.9). The total acquisition cost for all reversal drugs was United States dollar (USD) 11,358 (USD 60 per patient) while the cost would have been USD 19,312 (USD 103 per patient, 70% higher) if sugammadex had been used in all patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A protocol that includes quantitative monitoring to guide reversal with neostigmine or sugammadex and to confirm TOF ratio ≥0.9 before extubation resulted in the complete prevention of PRNB. With current pricing of drugs, the selective use of sugammadex reduced the total cost of reversal drugs compared to the projected cost associated with routine use of sugammadex for all patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006511\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006511","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:即使在多个国家和国际麻醉学会强烈建议进行神经肌肉定量监测的情况下,神经肌肉阻滞的最佳药物逆转策略仍未确定。我们评估了管理罗库溴铵阻滞和逆转的方案,使用定量监测指导逆转剂的选择,并在拔管前确认完全逆转:我们进行了一项前瞻性队列研究,招募了 200 名计划接受择期手术并在术中使用罗库溴铵的患者。我们要求医疗服务提供者遵守一项与当地神经肌肉阻滞逆转实践建议相似的方案,该方案已使用两年以上;该方案增加了定量监测,而我们的医疗机构此前并未常规使用定量监测。在这项研究中,医疗服务提供者使用了基于肌电图的定量监测。如果四次肌电图(TOF)比值为 0.40 至 0.89,则使用新斯的明进行药理逆转;如果阻滞程度较深,则使用苏加麦司进行药理逆转。主要终点是术后残余神经肌肉阻滞(PRNB)的发生率,定义为 TOF 比值 结果:共有 189 名患者完成了研究:66名患者(35%)使用了新斯的明,90名患者(48%)使用了苏加麦司,33名患者(17%)在没有药物逆转的情况下自行康复。残余麻痹的总发生率为 0% (95% CI, 0-1.9)。所有逆转药物的总购买成本为11,358美元(每位患者60美元),而如果对所有患者使用舒甘麦得斯,成本则为19,312美元(每位患者103美元,高出70%):采用包括定量监测的方案来指导新斯的明或舒甘美定的逆转,并在拔管前确认TOF比值≥0.9,从而完全避免了PRNB。根据目前的药物定价,与所有患者常规使用舒甘麦相比,选择性使用舒甘麦可降低逆转药物的总成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Management of Muscle Relaxation With Rocuronium and Reversal With Neostigmine or Sugammadex Guided by Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring.

Background: The optimal pharmacological reversal strategy for neuromuscular blockade remains undefined even in the setting of strong recommendations for quantitative neuromuscular monitoring by several national and international anesthesiology societies. We evaluated a protocol for managing rocuronium blockade and reversal, using quantitative monitoring to guide choice of reversal agent and to confirm full reversal before extubation.

Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study and enrolled 200 patients scheduled for elective surgery involving the intraoperative use of rocuronium. Providers were asked to adhere to a protocol that was similar to local practice recommendations for neuromusculalr block reversal that had been used for >2 years; the protocol added quantitative monitoring that had not previously been routinely used at our institution. In this study, providers used electromyography-based quantitative monitoring. Pharmacological reversal was accomplished with neostigmine if the train-of-four (TOF) ratio was 0.40 to 0.89 and with sugammadex for deeper levels of blockade. The primary end point was the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (PRNB), defined as TOF ratio <0.9 at time of extubation. We further evaluated the difference in pharmacy costs had all patients been treated with sugammadex.

Results: A total of 189 patients completed the study: 66 patients (35%) were reversed with neostigmine, 90 patients (48%) with sugammadex, and 33 (17%) patients recovered spontaneously without pharmacological reversal. The overall incidence of residual paralysis was 0% (95% CI, 0-1.9). The total acquisition cost for all reversal drugs was United States dollar (USD) 11,358 (USD 60 per patient) while the cost would have been USD 19,312 (USD 103 per patient, 70% higher) if sugammadex had been used in all patients.

Conclusions: A protocol that includes quantitative monitoring to guide reversal with neostigmine or sugammadex and to confirm TOF ratio ≥0.9 before extubation resulted in the complete prevention of PRNB. With current pricing of drugs, the selective use of sugammadex reduced the total cost of reversal drugs compared to the projected cost associated with routine use of sugammadex for all patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anesthesia and analgesia
Anesthesia and analgesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
7.00%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
×
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