McKay Rachel Eshima, Hall Kathryn T, Hills Nancy
From the *Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; and Departments of †Epidemiology and Biostatistics and ‡Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Anesth Analg. 2016 Feb;122(2):393-401. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001022.
Nonintubated patients receiving sevoflurane have slower protective airway reflex recovery after anesthesia compared with patients receiving desflurane. We asked whether this difference would remain significant among intubated patients receiving rocuronium or whether the impact of variable neuromuscular recovery would predominate and thus minimize differences between anesthetics.
After obtaining written informed consent, patients were randomly assigned to receive sevoflurane (n = 41) or desflurane (n = 40), with neuromuscular monitoring by quantitative train-of-four (TOF) method using accelerometry. Intubation was facilitated by administration of 1 mg/kg rocuronium. Neuromuscular block was produced, with the goal of maintaining 10% to 15% of baseline function. After surgery, neostigmine 70 µg/kg + glycopyrrolate 14 µg/kg was administered. When TOF ratio reached ≥ 0.7, anesthetic was discontinued and fresh gas flow was raised to 15 L/m. The time of first response to command was noted, after which patients were given a 20-mL water swallowing test at 2, 6, 14, 22, 30, and 60 minutes. The following average time intervals were compared between the 2 intervention groups: anesthetic discontinuation to first response to command (T1); first response to command to first successful passing of swallow test (T2); and anesthetic discontinuation to first successful passing of swallow test (T3). We also compared the rates of successful swallow tests at 2 minutes after first response to command in the 2 groups, first categorizing as failures all those who were unable to take the test at 2 minutes, and then excluding 10 patients unable to take the test at this time for reasons other than somnolence (n = 10).
Patients receiving desflurane passed the swallowing test at shorter time intervals after first response to command than did patients receiving sevoflurane (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds = 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.69; P = 0.054). Two minutes after the first response to command, among all 81 patients, the chance of passing the swallowing test was higher after desflurane compared with sevoflurane anesthesia (relative risk = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5; P = 0.04). Of the 71 patients (as above), we observed a significantly higher chance of passing at 2 minutes after first response to command (relative risk = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7; P = 0.006) in patients receiving desflurane (25/33) compared with those receiving sevoflurane (16/38). In 18 of 81 and 16 of 71 patients, the neuromuscular monitoring and reversal protocols were not followed (neostigmine underdosed, extubation at TOF <0.7, or reliance on tactile as opposed to quantitative TOF measurement). In both the total cohort and the subset of 71, neuromuscular protocol adherence increased the chance of passing the swallow test, independent of anesthetic assignment in multivariable logistic regression (P = 0.02 and P = 0.006, respectively), demonstrating significant effect on airway reflex recovery independent of chosen anesthetic.
Compared with sevoflurane, desflurane allowed faster recovery of airway reflexes after anesthesia in intubated patients. Clinical management of neuromuscular block, including full reversal and the use of quantitative TOF, affects airway reflex recovery-an effect that may be at least as profound as the choice of potent inhaled anesthetic.
与接受地氟烷的患者相比,接受七氟烷的非插管患者麻醉后保护性气道反射恢复较慢。我们探讨了在接受罗库溴铵的插管患者中这种差异是否仍然显著,或者可变的神经肌肉恢复的影响是否会占主导地位,从而使麻醉剂之间的差异最小化。
获得书面知情同意后,患者被随机分配接受七氟烷(n = 41)或地氟烷(n = 40),采用加速度计通过定量四个成串刺激(TOF)方法进行神经肌肉监测。给予1 mg/kg罗库溴铵以利于插管。产生神经肌肉阻滞,目标是维持基线功能的10%至15%。手术后,给予新斯的明70 μg/kg + 格隆溴铵14 μg/kg。当TOF比值达到≥ 0.7时,停止麻醉并将新鲜气流增加到15 L/m。记录对指令的首次反应时间,之后在2、6、14、22、30和60分钟时让患者进行20 mL水吞咽试验。比较两个干预组之间的以下平均时间间隔:停止麻醉至对指令的首次反应(T1);对指令的首次反应至吞咽试验首次成功通过(T2);停止麻醉至吞咽试验首次成功通过(T3)。我们还比较了两组在对指令的首次反应后2分钟时吞咽试验成功的比率,首先将所有在2分钟时无法进行试验的患者分类为失败,然后排除10名因嗜睡以外的原因在此时无法进行试验的患者(n = 10)。
与接受七氟烷的患者相比,接受地氟烷的患者在对指令的首次反应后较短时间间隔内通过吞咽试验(Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney优势比 = 1.60;95%置信区间[CI],1.01 - 2.69;P = 0.054)。在对指令的首次反应后2分钟,在所有81名患者中,与七氟烷麻醉相比,地氟烷麻醉后通过吞咽试验的机会更高(相对风险 = 1.6;95% CI,1.0 - 2.5;P = 0.04)。在上述71名患者中,我们观察到与接受七氟烷的患者(16/38)相比,接受地氟烷的患者(25/33)在对指令的首次反应后2分钟时通过的机会显著更高(相对风险 = 1.8;95% CI,1.2 - 2.7;P = 0.006)。在81名患者中的18名和71名患者中的16名中,未遵循神经肌肉监测和逆转方案(新斯的明剂量不足、TOF <0.7时拔管或依赖触觉而非定量TOF测量)。在整个队列和71名患者的子集中,神经肌肉方案的依从性增加了通过吞咽试验的机会,在多变量逻辑回归中与麻醉分配无关(分别为P = 0.02和P = 0.006),表明对气道反射恢复有显著影响,与所选麻醉剂无关。
与七氟烷相比,地氟烷可使插管患者麻醉后气道反射恢复更快。神经肌肉阻滞的临床管理,包括完全逆转和定量TOF的使用,会影响气道反射恢复——这种影响可能至少与强效吸入麻醉剂的选择一样深远。