A comparison of a prototype electromyograph vs. a mechanomyograph and an acceleromyograph for assessment of neuromuscular blockade. (16th October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bowdle, A.; Bussey, L.; Michaelsen, K.; Jelacic, S.; Nair, B.; Togashi, K.; Hulvershorn, J.
• Is Part Of: Anaesthesia. Volume 75:Number 2(2020)
• Page Start: 187
• Page End: 195
• Publication Date: 2019-10-16
• Subjects: electromyography -- mechanomyography -- neuromuscular blockade -- NMB reversal: acceleromyography assessment; Anesthesia -- Periodicals; 617.96
• DOI: 10.1111/anae.14872
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-2409

Abstract

Summary: The extent of neuromuscular blockade during anaesthesia is frequently measured using a train‐of‐four stimulus. Various monitors have been used to quantify the train‐of‐four, including mechanomyography, acceleromyography and electromyography. Mechanomyography is often considered to be the laboratory gold standard of measurement, but is not commercially available and has rarely been used in clinical practice. Acceleromyography is currently the most commonly used monitor in the clinical setting, whereas electromyography is not widely available. We compared a prototype electromyograph with a newly constructed mechanomyograph and a commercially available acceleromyograph monitor in 43 anesthetised patients. The mean difference (bias; 95% limits of agreement) in train‐of‐four ratios was 4.7 (−25.2 to 34.6) for mechanomyography vs. electromyography; 14.9 (−13.0 to 42.8) for acceleromyography vs. electromyography; and 9.8 (−31.8 to 51.3) for acceleromyography vs. mechanomyography. The mean difference (95% limits of agreement) in train‐of‐four ratios between opposite arms when using electromyography was −0.7 (−20.7 to 19.3). There were significantly more acceleromyography train‐of‐four values > 1.0 (23%) compared with electromyography or mechanomography (2–4%; p < 0.0001). Electromyography most closely resembled mechanomyographic assessment of neuromuscular blockade, whereas acceleromyography frequently produced train‐of‐four ratio values > 1.0, complicating the interpretation of acceleromyography results in the clinical setting.