Scheffenbichler Flora T, Ulm Bernhard, Borgstedt Laura, Scholze Anna, Kretsch Nadine, Zia Nadine, Friedrich Viola, Marb Magdalena, Schaller Stefan J, Jungwirth Bettina, Blobner Manfred
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of UIm, Ulm, Germany.
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
J Clin Monit Comput. 2025 May 28. doi: 10.1007/s10877-025-01304-z.
Anaesthesia providers often complain that quantitative neuromuscular monitoring does not accurately assess neuromuscular function, a problem that can be mitigated by appropriate calibration. However, there are only very limited recommendations for the calibration of quantitative neuromuscular monitoring in clinical routine. Therefore, this multicentre prospective agreement study compared the precision of electromyography using three different calibration approaches.
Sixty patients were assigned to one of three investigational calibration approaches: calibration before anaesthesia induction, calibration during anaesthesia induction, i.e., at loss of consciousness and state entropy < 85, or uncalibrated. All patients received electromyography calibration under deep anaesthesia on the second arm (control as recommended for research). The primary endpoint was the repeatability coefficient, which describes the fluctuation of the following train-of-four (TOF) reading. It therefore provides an estimate of the precision of a measurement method. Secondary endpoints included agreement with control calibration and pain at induction.
The repeatability coefficient at TOF ratios ≥ 0.8 indicated that electromyography monitoring was less precise when TOF readings were uncalibrated (0.124 ± 0.130) or with calibration during induction (0.087 ± 0.104) but was acceptable after calibration before induction (0.075 ± 0.036) compared to those measured after calibration on the contralateral arm (control: 0.072 ± 0.027, 0.061 ± 0.021, and 0.083 ± 0.063, respectively). Recall of pain at anaesthesia induction did not differ between investigational groups.
The findings underline the importance of thoroughly performed calibration for precise TOF readings to reliably exclude residual neuromuscular blockade. Electromyography was most precise when calibration was performed under deep anaesthesia (control). If that approach is not possible in the clinical setting, our data suggest that calibration before anaesthesia induction can be considered if previously discussed with the patient.
Clinical Trials NCT04911088, registered January 6, 2021.
麻醉医生经常抱怨定量神经肌肉监测不能准确评估神经肌肉功能,这一问题可通过适当校准得到缓解。然而,关于临床常规中定量神经肌肉监测校准的建议非常有限。因此,这项多中心前瞻性一致性研究比较了使用三种不同校准方法的肌电图精度。
60例患者被分配到三种研究校准方法之一:麻醉诱导前校准、麻醉诱导期间校准(即意识消失且状态熵<85时)或不校准。所有患者在第二条手臂上进行深度麻醉下的肌电图校准(作为研究推荐的对照)。主要终点是重复性系数,它描述了后续四个成串刺激(TOF)读数的波动情况。因此,它提供了一种测量方法精度的估计。次要终点包括与对照校准的一致性以及诱导时的疼痛情况。
TOF比值≥0.8时的重复性系数表明,当TOF读数未校准时(0.124±0.130)或诱导期间校准时(0.087±0.104),肌电图监测的精度较低,但与对侧手臂校准后测量的值相比,麻醉诱导前校准后的精度是可接受的(分别为0.075±0.036、对照:0.072±0.027、0.061±0.021和0.083±0.063)。各研究组之间麻醉诱导时疼痛的回忆情况没有差异。
研究结果强调了为获得精确的TOF读数以可靠排除残余神经肌肉阻滞而进行全面校准的重要性。在深度麻醉(对照)下进行校准时,肌电图最为精确。如果在临床环境中无法采用该方法,我们的数据表明,如果之前已与患者讨论过,可考虑在麻醉诱导前进行校准。
临床试验NCT04911088,于2021年1月6日注册。