Brull, Sorin J

AbstractThe set of guidelines for good clinical research practice in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents was developed following an international consensus conference in Copenhagen in 1996 (Viby‐Mogensen et al., Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996, 40, 59–74); the guidelines were later revised and updated following the second consensus conference in Stockholm in 2005 (Fuchs‐Buder et al., Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2007, 51, 789–808). In view of new devices and further development of monitoring technologies that emerged since then, (e.g., electromyography, three‐dimensional acceleromyography, kinemyography) as well as novel compounds (e.g., sugammadex) a review and update of these recommendations became necessary. The intent of these revised guidelines is to continue to help clinical researchers to conduct high‐quality work and advance the field by enhancing the standards, consistency, and comparability of clinical studies.There is growing awareness of the importance of consensus‐based reporting standards in clinical trials and observational studies. Such global initiatives are necessary in order to minimize heterogeneous and inadequate data reporting and to improve clarity and comparability between different studies and study cohorts. Variations in definitions of endpoints or outcome variables can introduce confusion and difficulties in interpretation of data, but more importantly, it may preclude building of an adequate body of evidence to achieve reliable conclusions and recommendations. Clinical research in neuromuscular pharmacology and physiology is no exception.

Over the past five decades, quantitative neuromuscular monitoring devices have been used to examine the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular block in international clinical practices, and to determine their role in reducing the risk of residual neuromuscular block and associated adverse clinical outcomes. Several clinical trials and a recent meta-analysis have documented that the intraoperative application of quantitative monitoring significantly reduces the risk of residual neuromuscular blockade in the operating room and postanesthesia care unit. In addition, emerging data show that quantitative monitoring minimizes the risk of adverse clinical events, such as unplanned postoperative reintubations, hypoxemia, and postoperative episodes of airway obstruction associated with incomplete neuromuscular recovery, and may improve postoperative respiratory outcomes. Several international anesthesia societies have recommended that quantitative monitoring be performed whenever a neuromuscular blocking agent is administered. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the literature was performed to determine the potential benefits of quantitative monitoring in the perioperative setting.

Background The paucity of easy-to-use, reliable objective neuromuscular monitors is an obstacle to universal adoption of routine neuromuscular monitoring. Electromyography (EMG) has been proposed as the optimal neuromuscular monitoring technology since it addresses several acceleromyography limitations. This clinical study compared simultaneous neuromuscular responses recorded from induction of neuromuscular block until recovery using the acceleromyography-based TOF-Watch SX and EMG-based TetraGraph. Methods Fifty consenting patients participated. The acceleromyography and EMG devices analyzed simultaneous contractions (acceleromyography) and muscle action potentials (EMG) from the adductor pollicis muscle by synchronization via fiber optic cable link. Bland–Altman analysis described the agreement between devices during distinct phases of neuromuscular block. The primary endpoint was agreement of acceleromyography- and EMG-derived normalized train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 80%. Secondary endpoints were agreement in the recovery train-of-four ratio range less than 80% and agreement of baseline train-of-four ratios between the devices. Results Acceleromyography showed normalized train-of-four ratio greater than or equal to 80% earlier than EMG. When acceleromyography showed train-of-four ratio greater than or equal to 80% (n = 2,929), the bias was 1.3 toward acceleromyography (limits of agreement, –14.0 to 16.6). When EMG showed train-of-four ratio greater than or equal to 80% (n = 2,284), the bias was –0.5 toward EMG (–14.7 to 13.6). In the acceleromyography range train-of-four ratio less than 80% (n = 2,802), the bias was 2.1 (–16.1 to 20.2), and in the EMG range train-of-four ratio less than 80% (n = 3,447), it was 2.6 (–14.4 to 19.6). Baseline train-of-four ratios were higher and more variable with acceleromyography than with EMG. Conclusions Bias was lower than in previous studies. Limits of agreement were wider than expected because acceleromyography readings varied more than EMG both at baseline and during recovery. The EMG-based monitor had higher precision and greater repeatability than acceleromyography. This difference between monitors was even greater when EMG data were compared to raw (nonnormalized) acceleromyography measurements. The EMG monitor is a better indicator of adequate recovery from neuromuscular block and readiness for safe tracheal extubation than the acceleromyography monitor. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New