Veerle Bijkerk,Piet Krijtenburg,Tessa Verweijen,Jörgen Bruhn,Gert Jan Scheffer,Christiaan Keijzer,Michiel C Warlé
{"title":"麻醉后护理病房的残留神经肌肉阻滞:一项单中心前瞻性观察研究和系统性综述。","authors":"Veerle Bijkerk,Piet Krijtenburg,Tessa Verweijen,Jörgen Bruhn,Gert Jan Scheffer,Christiaan Keijzer,Michiel C Warlé","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nConcerns regarding residual neuromuscular block (RNMB) have persisted since the introduction of neuromuscular blocking agents, with reported incidences in the 21st century up to 50%. Advances in neuromuscular transmission (NMT) monitoring and the introduction of sugammadex have addressed this issue, but the impact of these developments remains unclear.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis prospective observational study evaluated RNMB in 500 surgical patients in a large Dutch teaching hospital with readily available quantitative NMT monitoring and reversal agents. The anaesthetic technique and intraoperative NMT monitoring were independently chosen by the attending anaesthesiologist. Acceleromyography was performed upon arrival in the PACU for patients who received nondepolarising neuromuscular blocking agents. RNMB was defined as a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) <0.9. A systematic review was conducted to analyse trends in RNMB in contemporary practice.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nOut of 500 patients, 11 (2.2%) had a TOFR <0.9. Intraoperative NMT monitoring was performed in 77.6% of patients, and sugammadex was administered to 38% of patients. No patient received neostigmine. The only difference was an automatically recorded TOFR ≥0.9 at the end of surgery in 61.1% in the non-RNMB group compared with 18.2% in the RNMB group (P=0.009). Our systematic review identified incidences ranging from 3.5% to 53.3% since 2000, with a decreasing trend in Europe and North America.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThe incidence of residual neuromuscular block in the PACU was 2.2%. This suggests significant improvement in the prevention of residual neuromuscular block and stresses the importance of rigorous neuromuscular transmission monitoring and adequate use of reversal agents.","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Residual neuromuscular block in the postanaesthesia care unit: a single-centre prospective observational study and systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Veerle Bijkerk,Piet Krijtenburg,Tessa Verweijen,Jörgen Bruhn,Gert Jan Scheffer,Christiaan Keijzer,Michiel C Warlé\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nConcerns regarding residual neuromuscular block (RNMB) have persisted since the introduction of neuromuscular blocking agents, with reported incidences in the 21st century up to 50%. Advances in neuromuscular transmission (NMT) monitoring and the introduction of sugammadex have addressed this issue, but the impact of these developments remains unclear.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nThis prospective observational study evaluated RNMB in 500 surgical patients in a large Dutch teaching hospital with readily available quantitative NMT monitoring and reversal agents. The anaesthetic technique and intraoperative NMT monitoring were independently chosen by the attending anaesthesiologist. Acceleromyography was performed upon arrival in the PACU for patients who received nondepolarising neuromuscular blocking agents. RNMB was defined as a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) <0.9. A systematic review was conducted to analyse trends in RNMB in contemporary practice.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nOut of 500 patients, 11 (2.2%) had a TOFR <0.9. Intraoperative NMT monitoring was performed in 77.6% of patients, and sugammadex was administered to 38% of patients. No patient received neostigmine. The only difference was an automatically recorded TOFR ≥0.9 at the end of surgery in 61.1% in the non-RNMB group compared with 18.2% in the RNMB group (P=0.009). Our systematic review identified incidences ranging from 3.5% to 53.3% since 2000, with a decreasing trend in Europe and North America.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nThe incidence of residual neuromuscular block in the PACU was 2.2%. This suggests significant improvement in the prevention of residual neuromuscular block and stresses the importance of rigorous neuromuscular transmission monitoring and adequate use of reversal agents.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.043\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.043","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Residual neuromuscular block in the postanaesthesia care unit: a single-centre prospective observational study and systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Concerns regarding residual neuromuscular block (RNMB) have persisted since the introduction of neuromuscular blocking agents, with reported incidences in the 21st century up to 50%. Advances in neuromuscular transmission (NMT) monitoring and the introduction of sugammadex have addressed this issue, but the impact of these developments remains unclear.
METHODS
This prospective observational study evaluated RNMB in 500 surgical patients in a large Dutch teaching hospital with readily available quantitative NMT monitoring and reversal agents. The anaesthetic technique and intraoperative NMT monitoring were independently chosen by the attending anaesthesiologist. Acceleromyography was performed upon arrival in the PACU for patients who received nondepolarising neuromuscular blocking agents. RNMB was defined as a train-of-four ratio (TOFR) <0.9. A systematic review was conducted to analyse trends in RNMB in contemporary practice.
RESULTS
Out of 500 patients, 11 (2.2%) had a TOFR <0.9. Intraoperative NMT monitoring was performed in 77.6% of patients, and sugammadex was administered to 38% of patients. No patient received neostigmine. The only difference was an automatically recorded TOFR ≥0.9 at the end of surgery in 61.1% in the non-RNMB group compared with 18.2% in the RNMB group (P=0.009). Our systematic review identified incidences ranging from 3.5% to 53.3% since 2000, with a decreasing trend in Europe and North America.
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of residual neuromuscular block in the PACU was 2.2%. This suggests significant improvement in the prevention of residual neuromuscular block and stresses the importance of rigorous neuromuscular transmission monitoring and adequate use of reversal agents.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience.
The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence.
Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.