Renew, J. Ross

In the era of “fast-track’ liver transplantation (LT), neuromuscular blockade (NMB) antagonists such as neostigmine or sugammadex are used to achieve the restoration of neuromuscular function. While sugammadex reverses NMB faster than neostigmine, it has been shown to prolong prothrombin time (PT) and activated thromboplastin time (aPTT). However, this agent’s impact on coagulation during LT is not understood. We compare bleeding risk associated with sugammadex versus neostigmine during liver transplantation. This is a single-center, retrospective review of LT patients who received NMB antagonists intraoperatively between 01/01/2015 to 05/31/2018 at Mayo Clinic in Florida. The primary outcomes were postoperative day (POD) 0-1 bleeding events and POD 0 values of aPTT and INR. Total 241 patients were included, with 135 patients in the neostigmine group (NG) and 106 in the sugammadex group (SG). POD 0-1 postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion occurred in 20% of NG versus 10.4% in SG. POD 0-1 re-operation for bleeding occurred in 1.5% in NG vs. 0% in SG. POD 0 mean INR was 2.0±0.4 in both groups. POD 0 mean aPTT was 45.5±7.9 in NG vs. 49.3±9.0 in SG. Our retrospective study suggests that sugammadex is not associated with an increased risk of bleeding compared to neostigmine use.

BACKGROUND: The pattern of perioperative use of personal electronic devices (PEDs) among anesthesia providers in the United States is unknown. METHODS: We developed a 31-question anonymous survey of perioperative PED use that was sent to 813 anesthesiologists, anesthesiology residents, and certified registered nurse anesthetists at 3 sites within one health system. The electronic survey assessed patterns of PED use inside the operating room (OR), outside the OR, and observed in others. Questions were designed to explore the various purposes for PED use, the potential impact of specific hospital policies or awareness of medicolegal risk on PED use, and whether PED was a source of perioperative distraction. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 36.8% (n = 299). With regard to often/frequent PED activity inside the OR, 24% reported texting, 5% reported talking on the phone, and 11% reported browsing on the Internet. With regard to often/frequent PED activity outside the OR, 88% reported texting, 26% reported talking on the phone, and 63% reported browsing the Internet. With regard to often/frequent PED activity observed in others, 52% reported others texting, 14% reported others talking on the phone, and 34% reported others browsing the Internet. Two percent of respondents self-reported a distraction compared to 15% who had observed a distraction in others. Eighty percent of respondents recognized PED as a potential distraction for patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Our data reinforce that PED use is prevalent among anesthesia providers.

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

BACKGROUND: Subjective evaluations to confirm recovery from neuromuscular blockade with a peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) is inadequate. Quantitative monitors are the only reliable method to confirm adequate recovery of neuromuscular function. Unfortunately, many clinicians are unfamiliar with such devices and there is concern that the introduction of objective monitoring would be exceedingly laborious and could cause workflow delays. This study investigates how long it takes experienced nurse anesthetists to apply various neuromuscular devices as well as their perception regarding the ease of application. METHODS: Twenty nurse anesthetists were consented and participated in an educational session that familiarized them with 3 devices: SunStim Plus PNS (SunMed, Grand Rapids, MI), the acceleromyography-based IntelliVue NMT device (Philips, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and electromyography-based TetraGraph device (Senzime B.V., Uppsala, Sweden). Participants were timed while placing each monitor on patients in a real-world setting. For the quantitative devices (IntelliVue NMT and TetraGraph), participants were also timed when obtaining calibrated baseline train-of-four (TOF) ratios. Friedman test and pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to evaluate the difference in time to connect different devices. Participants were surveyed about how easy they found it to utilize these devices. RESULTS: After adjusting for multiple comparison, time to connect was significantly less for PNS (median, 29; range, 16–58 seconds) compared to either the TetraGraph device (median, 62.8; range, 32–101 seconds; P < .001) or the IntelliVue NMT device (median, 46; range: 28–90 seconds; P < .001). The difference in time to connect between the TetraGraph device and the IntelliVue NMT device was not statistically significant ( P = .053), but it took significantly less time to calibrate the TetraGraph device than the IntelliVue NMT device (median difference, −16; range, −88 to 49 seconds; P = .002). The participants found applying either the IntelliVue NMT device ( P = .042) or the TetraGraph device ( P = .048) more difficult than applying a PNS while finding it easier to calibrate the TetraGraph device versus the IntelliVue NMT device ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: It takes 19 seconds longer to apply a quantitative neuromuscular monitor (the IntelliVue NMT device) than a PNS. While this difference reached significance, this relatively minimal additional time represents an inappropriate barrier to the application of quantitative monitors. Regardless of which quantitative monitor was utilized, these nurse anesthetists found the application and utilization of such devices relatively straightforward.

Extracorporeal circulation (ECC) support using intraoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during lung transplantation (LTx) is now a routine practice for many high volume centers. Circuits that are dedicated to ECMO alone can be expensive and do not allow full cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) to be performed. We describe our technique of instituting venoarterial ECMO during LTx using a less-expensive hybrid circuit that facilitates easy and immediate conversion to full CPB if needed, without interruption of ECC.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for easy to use, reliable neuromuscular monitors (NMMs). This multicenter, prospective, unblinded study compared the discomfort associated with neurostimulation in unmedicated healthy volunteers when using the new electromyography (EMG)-based TetraGraph and acceleromyography (AMG)-based TOF-Watch NMMs. The secondary aim was to compare the repeatability of the train-of-four (TOF) ratios (TOFRs) obtained with the 2 devices. METHODS: The TOF measurements of 135 volunteers from 3 university hospitals were analyzed (age: 38.3 ± 12 years [mean ± standard deviation [SD]]; male/female ratio = 63:72). The left or right ulnar nerve was stimulated at the wrist in TOF mode with 20, 30, 40, and 50 mA stimulating current intensities with both devices in random order. The TOF-Watch used standard electrocardiography (ECG) electrodes (Red Dot; 3M Health Care) for nerve stimulation. The stimulating surface area of 1 ECG electrode is 113 mm 2 . The piezoelectric probe was attached to the thumb, and a hand adapter was used to ensure consistency of AMG measurements. The TetraGraph uses proprietary surface strip electrodes for nerve stimulation and muscle action potential recording, whose stimulating surface area is roughly twice as big as that of standard ECG electrodes (228.5 mm 2 ). The volunteers were asked to rate the discomfort associated with neurostimulation on a 0–10 verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) score anchored with 0 (no pain) and 10 (worst pain ever experienced). A linear mixed-effects model was used to evaluate the difference in VNRS scores between devices. P <.05 was accepted as the level of significance. RESULTS: In the linear mixed-effects model, there were no differences in VNRS scores between devices at any of the stimulating current intensities, P = .38. The median (range) VNRS scores obtained with TOF-Watch and TetraGraph devices were 2 (0–7) vs 2 (0–8) at 20 mA, 3 (1–9) vs 3 (1–9) at 30 mA, 5 (1–10) vs 5 (1–10) at 40 mA, and 5 (1–10) vs 6 (1–10) at 50 mA stimulating current intensities. The mean of the 1469 TOFRs obtained with TetraGraph was 100.43% ± 7.74% (standard error = 0.2%). Due to technical difficulties, the repeatability of the TOFRs could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the different size and design of the stimulating electrodes, the 2 NMMs caused the same level of discomfort in unmedicated healthy volunteers.

Acute porphyria is a group of rare disorders in the biosynthesis pathway of heme that can result in severe neurovisceral attacks leading to morbidity and mortality. Perioperative complications have been largely prevented due to avoidance of precipitants and early treatment of symptoms. However, these measures may not always be successful, because not all physiological stressors can be evaded. This case illustrates a porphyria attack precipitated by prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass that manifested as postoperative delayed emergence, failure to wean from mechanical ventilation, autonomic insufficiency requiring significant vasoactive agents, and, ultimately, failure to thrive. The patient passed after withdrawal of care.