Dubovoy Timur, Housey Michelle, Devine Scott, Kheterpal Sachin
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Michigan Medical School, CVC 4172, 1500 East Medical Centre Drive, Ann Arbour, MI, 48109, USA.
Merck, Sharp, and Dohme, Inc, P.O. Box 100, Whitehouse Station, NJ, 08889-0100, USA.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2016 Oct 22;16(1):103. doi: 10.1186/s12871-016-0266-2.
Using electronic health record data, we hypothesized that larger reversal doses are used for patients with deeper levels of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) as evidenced by the last recorded TOF measurement. We also examined if dosing regimens reflect current practice guidelines of using ideal body weight (IBW) for NMB agents and total body weight (TBW) for neostigmine.
This is a retrospective observational study of adult, ASA 1-4 patients who underwent general anaesthesia and received non-depolarizing NMB agents between 01/01/2004 and 12/31/2013. For the primary outcome, percentages of cases receiving neostigmine and median doses administered for each subjective train-of-four (TOF) category were calculated. Secondary analyses evaluated associations between NMB dosing and neostigmine administration based on Body Mass Index (BMI) categories.
A total of 135,633 cases met inclusion criteria for the study. There was no clinically significant difference in median neostigmine dosing based on last TOF count prior to reversal administration: 37.5 mcg/kg for TOF of 4/4 vs. 37.9 mcg/kg for TOF of 0/4 for the total neostigmine dose. Significantly higher number of patients with lower TOF counts received additional neostigmine administration: 5.7 % for 0/4 vs. 1.5 % for 4/4 TOF counts. The median times to extubation following neostigmine administration were clinically similar across TOF count categories. The median doses for neostigmine based on TBW decreased with higher BMI categories and were significantly different between the lowest and highest categories: 42.8 mcg/kg vs 30.8 mcg/kg for total doses (p < .0001) respectively. The percentages of cases requiring reversal in addition to the initial dose increased with increasing BMI categories and were 2.1 % for BMI < 18 vs. 3.3 % for BMI ≥ 40. The total median dose of NMB agents in ED95 equivalents per IBW increased from 2.9 in the Underweight category to 4.2 in the Class III Obese category. The majority of patients in the pancuronium subgroup received very low ED95 equivalent dose of 0.1 and did not require reversal. Patients receiving cisatracurium were given significantly higher median ED95 equivalent dose of 5.6 vs 2.8-3.9 compared to other intermediate acting NMB agents, while receiving clinically similar doses of neostigmine.
Neither neostigmine dosing nor times to extubation were affected by the depth of the neuromuscular blockade prior to reversal. The need for additional reversal, or rescue, correlated strongly with the depth of NMB. There was significant variability in neostigmine dosing across the BMI categories. Underweight patients received relatively lower NMB doses while simultaneously receiving relatively higher reversal doses, and the opposite was true for patients with BMI >40.
利用电子健康记录数据,我们推测对于神经肌肉阻滞(NMB)程度更深的患者会使用更大的逆转剂量,这一点可由最后记录的四个成串刺激(TOF)测量结果得以证明。我们还研究了给药方案是否符合当前的实践指南,即NMB药物使用理想体重(IBW),新斯的明使用总体重(TBW)。
这是一项针对2004年1月1日至2013年12月31日期间接受全身麻醉并使用非去极化NMB药物的成年ASA 1-4级患者的回顾性观察研究。对于主要结局,计算接受新斯的明治疗的病例百分比以及每个主观四个成串刺激(TOF)类别所给予的中位剂量。二级分析基于体重指数(BMI)类别评估NMB给药与新斯的明给药之间的关联。
共有135,633例病例符合该研究的纳入标准。在逆转给药前,根据最后TOF计数,新斯的明中位给药量无临床显著差异:对于总的新斯的明剂量,TOF为4/4时为37.5 mcg/kg,TOF为0/4时为37.9 mcg/kg。TOF计数较低的患者接受额外新斯的明给药的人数显著更多:TOF为0/4时为5.7%,TOF为4/4时为1.5%。新斯的明给药后拔管的中位时间在各TOF计数类别之间临床上相似。基于TBW的新斯的明中位剂量随BMI类别升高而降低,最低和最高类别之间存在显著差异:总剂量分别为42.8 mcg/kg和30.8 mcg/kg(p < 0.0001)。除初始剂量外需要额外逆转的病例百分比随BMI类别增加而增加,BMI < 18时为2.1%,BMI≥40时为3.3%。按IBW计算的NMB药物总中位剂量以ED95等效剂量计,从体重过轻类别中的2.9增加到III级肥胖类别中的4.2。泮库溴铵亚组中的大多数患者接受非常低的ED95等效剂量0.1,且不需要逆转。与其他中效NMB药物相比,接受顺式阿曲库铵的患者给予的中位ED95等效剂量显著更高,为5.6,而其他药物为2.8 - 3.9,同时接受临床上相似剂量的新斯的明。
逆转前神经肌肉阻滞的深度既不影响新斯的明给药量,也不影响拔管时间。额外逆转或解救需求与NMB深度密切相关。新斯的明给药量在各BMI类别之间存在显著差异。体重过轻的患者接受相对较低的NMB剂量,同时接受相对较高的逆转剂量,而BMI > 40的患者情况则相反。