Pro-Con Debate: Do We Need Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring in the Era of Sugammadex?

Abstract

In this Pro-Con article, we debate the merits of using quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring. Consensus guidelines recommend their use to guide the administration of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade and reversal agents. A major impediment to this guideline is that until recently, reliable quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitors have not been widely available. Without them, anesthesia providers have been trained with and are adept at using a variety of qualitative neuromuscular blockade monitors otherwise known as peripheral nerve stimulators. Although perhaps less accurate, anesthesia providers find them reliable and easy to use. They have a long track record of using them with the perception that their use leads to effective neuromuscular blockade reversal and minimizes clinically significant adverse events from residual neuromuscular blockade. In the recent past, 2 disruptive developments have called upon anesthesia care providers to reconsider their practice in neuromuscular blockade administration, reversal, and monitoring. These include: (1) commercialization of more reliable quantitative neuromuscular monitors and (2) widespread use of sugammadex, a versatile reversal agent of neuromuscular blockade. Sugammadex appears to be so effective at rapidly and effectively reversing even the deepest of neuromuscular blockades, and it has left anesthesia providers wondering whether quantitative monitoring is indeed necessary or whether conventional, familiar, and less expensive qualitative monitoring will suffice? This Pro-Con debate will contrast anesthesia provider perceptions with evidence surrounding the use of quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitors to explore whether quantitative neuromuscular monitoring (NMM) is just another technology solution looking for a problem or a significant advance in NMM that will improve patient safety and outcomes.