Differences between acceleromyography and electromyography during neuromuscular function monitoring in anesthetized Beagle dogs.

Objective Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring is essential for studies of potency and duration of neuromuscular blocking agents, and for detecting residual paralysis in anesthetized patients. This investigation evaluates whether there are systematic differences between acceleromyography ( AMG) and electromyography ( EMG); two quantitative methods for monitoring neuromuscular block. Study design Prospective. Animals Ten healthy Beagle dogs. Methods Dogs were anesthetized with isoflurane and dexmedetomidine. Both ulnar nerves were stimulated with a train-of-four ( TOF) pattern every 15 seconds. The magnitude of the first twitch ( T1) and the TOF ratio (magnitude of T4/ T1; TOFR) were quantified simultaneously with AMG and EMG, applied randomly to each extremity. The extent of maximal block ( T1 depression) and onset time were measured by AMG and EMG during TOF monitoring after the administration of cisatracurium (0.05 mg kg−1). In addition, recovery of T1 to 25% and 75%, the recovery index (time between T1 of 25% and 75%), and recovery of the TOFR to 0.9 were used to characterize recovery from cisatracurium and were compared between monitors. Regression and Bland- Altman plots for T1 and TOFR were also created. Results Maximal block and onset time were not different between monitors. Time to recovery of T1 to 25% and 75%, and time to TOF ratio 0.9 was significantly shorter with AMG. The recovery index was not different between monitors. When the TOFR returned to 0.9 with AMG, EMG still measured considerable residual block ( TOFR 0.47). Conclusions and clinical relevance Electromyography consistently detected residual NMB when recovery from NMB was complete as assessed by AMG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]