曲线下面积和复合运动动作电位振幅是临床上可互换的神经肌肉阻滞定量测量方法:方法比较研究

Richard H. Epstein , Réka Nemes , Johnathan R. Renew , Sorin J. Brull
{"title":"曲线下面积和复合运动动作电位振幅是临床上可互换的神经肌肉阻滞定量测量方法:方法比较研究","authors":"Richard H. Epstein ,&nbsp;Réka Nemes ,&nbsp;Johnathan R. Renew ,&nbsp;Sorin J. Brull","doi":"10.1016/j.bjao.2024.100293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Current guidelines recommend quantitative neuromuscular block monitoring during neuromuscular blocking agent administration. Monitors using surface electromyography (EMG) determine compound motor action potential (cMAP) amplitude or area under the curve (AUC). Rigorous evaluation of the interchangeability of these methods is lacking but necessary for clinical and research assurance that EMG interpretations of the depth of neuromuscular block are not affected by the methodology.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Digitised EMG waveforms were studied from 48 patients given rocuronium during two published studies. The EMG amplitudes and AUCs were calculated pairwise from all cMAPs classified as valid by visual inspection. Ratios of the first twitch (T<sub>1</sub>) to the control T<sub>1</sub> before administration of rocuronium (T<sub>1</sub>c) and train-of-four ratios (TOFRs) were compared using repeated measures Bland–Altman analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among the 2419 paired T<sub>1</sub>/T<sub>1</sub>c differences where the average T<sub>1</sub>/T<sub>1</sub>c was ≤0.2, eight (0.33%) were outside prespecified clinical limits of agreement (−0.148 to 0.164). Among the 1781 paired TOFR differences where the average TOFR was ≥0.8, 70 (3.93%) were outside the prespecified clinical limits of agreement ((−0.109 to 0.134). Among all 7286 T<sub>1</sub>/T<sub>1</sub>c paired differences, the mean bias was 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.202–0.043), and among all 5559 paired TOFR differences, the mean bias was 0.011 (95% confidence interval 0.0050–0.017). Among paired T<sub>1</sub>/T<sub>1</sub>c and TOFR differences, Lin's concordance correlation coefficients were 0.98 and 0.995, respectively. Repeatability coefficients for T<sub>1</sub>/T<sub>1</sub>c and TOFR were &lt;0.08, with no differences between methods.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Quantitative assessment neuromuscular block depth is clinically interchangeable when calculated using cMAP amplitude or the AUC.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72418,"journal":{"name":"BJA open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772609624000376/pdfft?md5=3d4c5eb200cc642afc513f84d40c84e7&pid=1-s2.0-S2772609624000376-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Area under the curve and amplitude of the compound motor action potential are clinically interchangeable quantitative measures of neuromuscular block: a method comparison study\",\"authors\":\"Richard H. Epstein ,&nbsp;Réka Nemes ,&nbsp;Johnathan R. Renew ,&nbsp;Sorin J. Brull\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bjao.2024.100293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Current guidelines recommend quantitative neuromuscular block monitoring during neuromuscular blocking agent administration. Monitors using surface electromyography (EMG) determine compound motor action potential (cMAP) amplitude or area under the curve (AUC). Rigorous evaluation of the interchangeability of these methods is lacking but necessary for clinical and research assurance that EMG interpretations of the depth of neuromuscular block are not affected by the methodology.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Digitised EMG waveforms were studied from 48 patients given rocuronium during two published studies. The EMG amplitudes and AUCs were calculated pairwise from all cMAPs classified as valid by visual inspection. Ratios of the first twitch (T<sub>1</sub>) to the control T<sub>1</sub> before administration of rocuronium (T<sub>1</sub>c) and train-of-four ratios (TOFRs) were compared using repeated measures Bland–Altman analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among the 2419 paired T<sub>1</sub>/T<sub>1</sub>c differences where the average T<sub>1</sub>/T<sub>1</sub>c was ≤0.2, eight (0.33%) were outside prespecified clinical limits of agreement (−0.148 to 0.164). Among the 1781 paired TOFR differences where the average TOFR was ≥0.8, 70 (3.93%) were outside the prespecified clinical limits of agreement ((−0.109 to 0.134). Among all 7286 T<sub>1</sub>/T<sub>1</sub>c paired differences, the mean bias was 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.202–0.043), and among all 5559 paired TOFR differences, the mean bias was 0.011 (95% confidence interval 0.0050–0.017). Among paired T<sub>1</sub>/T<sub>1</sub>c and TOFR differences, Lin's concordance correlation coefficients were 0.98 and 0.995, respectively. Repeatability coefficients for T<sub>1</sub>/T<sub>1</sub>c and TOFR were &lt;0.08, with no differences between methods.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Quantitative assessment neuromuscular block depth is clinically interchangeable when calculated using cMAP amplitude or the AUC.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72418,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJA open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772609624000376/pdfft?md5=3d4c5eb200cc642afc513f84d40c84e7&pid=1-s2.0-S2772609624000376-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJA open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772609624000376\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJA open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772609624000376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景目前的指南建议在使用神经肌肉阻滞剂期间进行定量神经肌肉阻滞监测。使用表面肌电图(EMG)监测仪可确定复合运动动作电位(cMAP)振幅或曲线下面积(AUC)。目前还没有对这些方法的互换性进行严格评估,但有必要对这些方法进行临床和研究评估,以确保 EMG 对神经肌肉阻滞深度的解释不受方法的影响。EMG振幅和AUC是通过目视检查归类为有效的所有cMAP成对计算得出的。结果在平均 T1/T1c ≤0.2 的 2419 个配对 T1/T1c 差异中,有 8 个(0.33%)超出了预先规定的临床一致性范围(-0.148 至 0.164)。在平均 TOFR ≥0.8 的 1781 个配对 TOFR 差异中,有 70 个(3.93%)不在预设的临床一致性范围内(-0.109 至 0.134)。在所有 7286 个 T1/T1c 配对差异中,平均偏差为 0.32(95% 置信区间为 0.202-0.043),在所有 5559 个 TOFR 配对差异中,平均偏差为 0.011(95% 置信区间为 0.0050-0.017)。在配对的 T1/T1c 和 TOFR 差异中,林氏一致性相关系数分别为 0.98 和 0.995。结论使用 cMAP 振幅或 AUC 计算神经肌肉阻滞深度的定量评估在临床上是可以互换的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Area under the curve and amplitude of the compound motor action potential are clinically interchangeable quantitative measures of neuromuscular block: a method comparison study

Background

Current guidelines recommend quantitative neuromuscular block monitoring during neuromuscular blocking agent administration. Monitors using surface electromyography (EMG) determine compound motor action potential (cMAP) amplitude or area under the curve (AUC). Rigorous evaluation of the interchangeability of these methods is lacking but necessary for clinical and research assurance that EMG interpretations of the depth of neuromuscular block are not affected by the methodology.

Methods

Digitised EMG waveforms were studied from 48 patients given rocuronium during two published studies. The EMG amplitudes and AUCs were calculated pairwise from all cMAPs classified as valid by visual inspection. Ratios of the first twitch (T1) to the control T1 before administration of rocuronium (T1c) and train-of-four ratios (TOFRs) were compared using repeated measures Bland–Altman analysis.

Results

Among the 2419 paired T1/T1c differences where the average T1/T1c was ≤0.2, eight (0.33%) were outside prespecified clinical limits of agreement (−0.148 to 0.164). Among the 1781 paired TOFR differences where the average TOFR was ≥0.8, 70 (3.93%) were outside the prespecified clinical limits of agreement ((−0.109 to 0.134). Among all 7286 T1/T1c paired differences, the mean bias was 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.202–0.043), and among all 5559 paired TOFR differences, the mean bias was 0.011 (95% confidence interval 0.0050–0.017). Among paired T1/T1c and TOFR differences, Lin's concordance correlation coefficients were 0.98 and 0.995, respectively. Repeatability coefficients for T1/T1c and TOFR were <0.08, with no differences between methods.

Conclusions

Quantitative assessment neuromuscular block depth is clinically interchangeable when calculated using cMAP amplitude or the AUC.

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
BJA open
BJA open Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
83 days
期刊最新文献
Cardiac coherence and medical hypnosis: a feasibility study of a new combined approach for managing preoperative anxiety in patients with breast or gynaecological cancer Perioperative considerations in the paediatric patient with congenital and acquired coagulopathy Evaluation of lung homogeneity in neonates and small infants during general anaesthesia using electrical impedance tomography: a prospective observational study Paediatric perioperative hypersensitivity: the performance of the current consensus formula and the effect of uneventful anaesthesia on serum tryptase. Reply to BJA Open 2024; 9: 100254 An update on iron therapy as an intervention to reduce blood transfusion for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1