Search

Background: In patients who receive a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking drug (NMBD) during anesthesia, undetected postoperative residual neuromuscular block is a common occurrence that carries a risk of potentially serious adverse events, particularly postoperative pulmonary complications. There is abundant evidence that residual block can be prevented when real-time (quantitative) neuromuscular monitoring with measurement of the train-of-four ratio is used to guide NMBD administration and reversal. Nevertheless, a significant percentage of anesthesiologists fail to use quantitative devices or even conventional peripheral nerve stimulators routinely. Our hypothesis was that a contributing factor to the nonutilization of neuromuscular monitoring was anesthesiologists' overconfidence in their knowledge and ability to manage the use of NMBDs without such guidance., Methods: We conducted an Internet-based multilingual survey among anesthesiologists worldwide. We asked respondents to answer 9 true/false questions related to the use of neuromuscular blocking drugs. Participants were also asked to rate their confidence in the accuracy of each of their answers on a scale of 50% (pure guess) to 100% (certain of answer)., Results: Two thousand five hundred sixty persons accessed the website; of these, 1629 anesthesiologists from 80 countries completed the 9-question survey. The respondents correctly answered only 57% of the questions. In contrast, the mean confidence exhibited by the respondents was 84%, which was significantly greater than their accuracy. Of the 1629 respondents, 1496 (92%) were overconfident., Conclusions: The anesthesiologists surveyed expressed overconfidence in their knowledge and ability to manage the use of NMBDs. This overconfidence may be partially responsible for the failure to adopt routine perioperative neuromuscular monitoring. When clinicians are highly confident in their knowledge about a procedure, they are less likely to modify their clinical practice or seek further guidance on its use.

A panel of clinician scientists with expertise in neuromuscular blockade (NMB) monitoring was convened with a charge to prepare a consensus statement on indications for and proper use of such monitors. The aims of this article are to: (a) provide the rationale and scientific basis for the use of quantitative NMB monitoring; (b) offer a set of recommendations for quantitative NMB monitoring standards; (c) specify educational goals; and (d) propose training recommendations to ensure proper neuromuscular monitoring and management. The panel believes that whenever a neuromuscular blocker is administered, neuromuscular function must be monitored by observing the evoked muscular response to peripheral nerve stimulation. Ideally, this should be done at the hand muscles (not the facial muscles) with a quantitative (objective) monitor. Objective monitoring (documentation of train-of-four ratio ≥0.90) is the only method of assuring that satisfactory recovery of neuromuscular function has taken place. The panel also recommends that subjective evaluation of the responses to train-of-four stimulation (when using a peripheral nerve stimulator) or clinical tests of recovery from NMB (such as the 5-second head lift) should be abandoned in favor of objective monitoring. During an interim period for establishing these recommendations, if only a peripheral nerve stimulator is available, its use should be mandatory in any patient receiving a neuromuscular blocking drug. The panel acknowledges that publishing this statement per se will not result in its spontaneous acceptance, adherence to its recommendations, or change in routine practice. Implementation of objective monitoring will likely require professional societies and anesthesia department leadership to champion its use to change anesthesia practitioner behavior.

Postoperative residual neuromuscular block has been recognized as a potential problem for decades, and it remains so today. Traditional pharmacologic antagonists (anticholinesterases) are ineffective in reversing profound and deep levels of neuromuscular block; at the opposite end of the recovery curve close to full recovery, anticholinesterases may induce paradoxical muscle weakness. The new selective relaxant-binding agent sugammadex can reverse any depth of block from aminosteroid (but not benzylisoquinolinium) relaxants; however, the effective dose to be administered should be chosen based on objective monitoring of the depth of neuromuscular block.To guide appropriate perioperative management, neuromuscular function assessment with a peripheral nerve stimulator is mandatory. Although in many settings, subjective (visual and tactile) evaluation of muscle responses is used, such evaluation has had limited success in preventing the occurrence of residual paralysis. Clinical evaluations of return of muscle strength (head lift and grip strength) or respiratory parameters (tidal volume and vital capacity) are equally insensitive at detecting neuromuscular weakness. Objective measurement (a train-of-four ratio greater than 0.90) is the only method to determine appropriate timing of tracheal extubation and ensure normal muscle function and patient safety.

Background: There is currently a controversy regarding the need for and clinical benefit of maintaining deep neuromuscular block (post-tetanic counts of 1 or 2) vs. moderate block (train-of-four counts of 1-3) for routine laparoscopic surgery. Two recent review articles on this subject arrived at rather different conclusions. This manuscript is part of Pro/Con debate from the authors of these two reviews., Methods: The authors of the Pro and Con sides of the debate had the opportunity to read each other manuscripts and worked from the same basic database of references., Results: The present authors could find only one peer-reviewed paper which presented objective evidence supporting the proposition that deep neuromuscular block provides superior operating conditions for the surgeon during laparoscopic surgery., Conclusion: There is not enough good evidence available to justify the routine use of deep neuromuscular block for laparoscopic surgery and the associated expense of high-dose sugammadex., (© 2016 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: An unanticipated difficult airway during induction of anesthesia can be a vexing problem. In the setting of can't intubate, can't ventilate (CICV), rapid recovery of spontaneous ventilation is a reasonable goal. The urgency of restoring ventilation is a function of how quickly a patient's hemoglobin oxygen saturation decreases versus how much time is required for the effects of induction drugs to dissipate, namely the duration of unresponsiveness, ventilatory depression, and neuromuscular blockade. It has been suggested that prompt reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex will allow respiratory activity to recover before significant arterial desaturation. Using pharmacologic simulation, we compared the duration of unresponsiveness, ventilatory depression, and neuromuscular blockade in normal, obese, and morbidly obese body sizes in this life-threatening CICV scenario. We hypothesized that although neuromuscular function could be rapidly restored with sugammadex, significant arterial desaturation will occur before the recovery from unresponsiveness and/or central ventilatory depression in obese and morbidly obese body sizes., Methods: We used published models to simulate the duration of unresponsiveness and ventilatory depression using a common induction technique with predicted rates of oxygen desaturation in various size patients and explored to what degree rapid reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex might improve the return of spontaneous ventilation in CICV situations., Results: Our simulations showed that the duration of neuromuscular blockade was longer with 1.0 mg/kg succinylcholine than with 1.2 mg/kg rocuronium followed 3 minutes later by 16 mg/kg sugammadex (10.0 vs 4.5 minutes). Once rocuronium neuromuscular blockade was completely reversed with sugammadex, the duration of hemoglobin oxygen saturation >90%, loss of responsiveness, and intolerable ventilatory depression (a respiratory rate of ≤4 breaths/min) were dependent on the body habitus and duration of oxygen administration. There is a high probability of intolerable ventilatory depression that extends well beyond the time when oxygen saturation decreases <90%, especially in obese and morbidly obese patients. If ventilatory rescue is inadequate, oxygen desaturation will persist in the latter groups, despite full reversal of neuromuscular blockade. Depending on body habitus, the duration of intolerable ventilatory depression after sugammadex reversal may be as long as 15 minutes in 5% of individuals., Conclusions: The clinical management of CICV should focus primarily on restoration of airway patency, oxygenation, and ventilation consistent with the American Society of Anesthesiologist's practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway. Pharmacologic intervention cannot be relied upon to rescue patients in a CICV crisis.

It has been hypothesized that providing deep neuromuscular block (a posttetanic count of 1 or more, but a train-of-four [TOF] count of zero) when compared with moderate block (TOF counts of 1-3) for laparoscopic surgery would allow for the use of lower inflation pressures while optimizing surgical space and enhancing patient safety. We conducted a literature search on 6 different medical databases using 3 search strategies in each database in an attempt to find data substantiating this proposition. In addition, we studied the reference lists of the articles retrieved in the search and of other relevant articles known to the authors. There is some evidence that maintaining low inflation pressures during intra-abdominal laparoscopic surgery may reduce postoperative pain. Unfortunately most of the studies that come to these conclusions give few if any details as to the anesthetic protocol or the management of neuromuscular block. Performing laparoscopic surgery under low versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum is associated with no difference in outcome with respect to surgical morbidity, conversion to open cholecystectomy, hemodynamic effects, length of hospital stay, or patient satisfaction. There is a limit to what deep neuromuscular block can achieve. Attempts to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy at an inflation pressure of 8 mm Hg are associated with a 40% failure rate even at posttetanic counts of 1 or less. Well-designed studies that ask the question "is deep block superior to moderate block vis-à-vis surgical operating conditions" are essentially nonexistent. Without exception, all the peer-reviewed studies we uncovered which state that they investigated this issue have such serious flaws in their protocols that the authors' conclusions are suspect. However, there is evidence that abdominal compliance was not increased by a significant amount when deep block was established when compared with moderate neuromuscular block. Maintenance of deep block for the duration of the pneumoperitoneum presents a problem for clinicians who do not have access to sugammadex. Reversal of block with neostigmine at a time when no response to TOF stimulation can be elicited is slow and incomplete and increases the potential for postoperative residual neuromuscular block. The obligatory addition of sugammadex to any anesthetic protocol based on the continuous maintenance of deep block is not without associated caveats. First, monitoring of neuromuscular function is still essential and second, antagonism of deep block necessitates doses of sugammadex of ≥4.0 mg/kg. Thus, maintenance of deep block has substantial economic repercussions. There are little objective data to support the proposition that deep neuromuscular block (when compared with less intense block; TOF counts of 1-3) contributes to better patient outcome or improves surgical operating conditions.

Purpose of Review: Residual neuromuscular block is a relatively frequent occurrence and is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications, including aspiration, pneumonia and hypoxia, impaired hypoxic ventilatory drive and decreased patient satisfaction. Although adequate recovery of neuromuscular function has been defined as a train-of-four ratio of at least 0.9, monitoring with a qualitative peripheral nerve stimulator makes it impossible to determine the actual train-of-four ratio., Recent Findings: Peripheral nerve stimulators are not routinely used in clinical practice. Without their use, dosing of neuromuscular blocking agents and anticholinesterases is often inappropriate and adequacy of recovery of neuromuscular function upon tracheal extubation cannot be guaranteed., Summary: Use of peripheral nerve stimulators allows clinicians to administer neuromuscular blocking and reversal agents in a rational manner. Routine use of quantitative monitors of depth of neuromuscular blockade is the best guarantee of the adequacy of recovery of postoperative muscle strength.

Background: Postoperative residual neuromuscular block is a frequent occurrence. Recent surveys of clinical practice in Europe suggest that neuromuscular blocking drugs are often administered without appropriate monitoring. No comparable survey has been undertaken in the United States (US). From this survey, we compared current clinical neuromuscular practice and attitudes between anesthesia practitioners in the US and Europe., Methods: We conducted an Internet-based survey among anesthesia practitioners in the US and Europe. The Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation and the European Society of Anaesthesiology e-mailed all of their active members, inviting them to anonymously answer a series of questions on a dedicated Internet Protocol address-sensitive website. The survey was available online for 60 days. The chi(2) test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare clinical survey items between the 2 cohorts., Results: A total of 2636 completed surveys were received. Most respondents from the US (64.1%) and Europe (52.2%) estimated the incidence of clinically significant postoperative residual neuromuscular weakness to be <1% (P < 0.0001). Routine pharmacologic reversal was less common in Europe than in the US (18% vs 34.2%, respectively; P < 0.0001), and quantitative monitors were available to fewer clinicians in the US (22.7%) than in Europe (70.2%) (P < 0.0001). However, 19.3% of Europeans and 9.4% of Americans never use neuromuscular monitors. Most respondents reported that neither conventional nerve stimulators nor quantitative train-of-four monitors should be part of minimum monitoring standards., Conclusions: Our results suggest a lack of agreement among anesthesia providers about the best way to monitor neuromuscular function. Efforts to improve awareness by developing formal training programs and/or publishing official guidelines on best practices to reduce the incidence of postoperative neuromuscular weakness and patient morbidity are warranted.

We present a case of prolonged recovery from mivacurium. Neuromuscular monitoring using acceleromyography was extremely helpful following attempted reversal of residual block in determining when tracheal extubation could be safely performed. If a method of objective estimation of the TOF ratio had not been available, tracheal extubation would have taken place at a time when the train-of-four fade ratio was below 0.40.