• J Clin Anesth · Dec 2021

    Observational Study

    A comparison of accelerometric monitoring by TOF Watch® SX and electromyographic monitoring by Tetragraph® for recovery from neuromuscular blockade.

    • Giorgio Giudici, Federico Piccioni, Paolo Proto, and Franco Valenza.
    • Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: giorgio.giudici@unimi.it.
    • J Clin Anesth. 2021 Dec 1; 75: 110481.

    BackgroundNeuromuscular monitoring has become a standard of care for management of anesthesia. While acceleromyography (AMG) is the most common technology used in clinical practice, guidelines suggest that electromyographic (EMG) devices are ideal for quantitative neuromuscular monitoring. The Tetragraph® is an EMG monitor that has recently been marketed.Study ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to assess the agreement during recovery from neuromuscular blockade of this new monitor with the TOF Watch® SX, and to compare intraobserver variability for the two devices.DesignSingle-center, prospective, observational clinical study.SettingOperating room.PatientsTwenty-three patients were enrolled and twenty patients were included in the analysis.InterventionA comparison of TOF-ratios measured sequentially from the same hand with the Tetragraph and TOF Watch SX was conducted during spontaneous recovery of neuromuscular function from patients that received rocuronium during surgery.Main Outcome MeasuresWe used Bland-Altman plots for repeated measures to compare TOF-ratios obtained sequentially by the two devices. Subsequent measures with the same device were used to calculate intraobserver variability for each monitor.Main ResultsThe bias between AMG and EMG for TOF-ratios range between 0.2 and 1.0 was 0.13 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.18) and the limits of agreement (LoA) were - 0.11 (95% CI -0.20 to -0.06) and 0.37 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.46), respectively. Agreement slightly improved for TOF-ratios higher than 0.8 compared with lower TOF-ratios: the bias was 0.12 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.17) and 0.13 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.19), respectively. EMG relative intraobserver variability was lower compared with AMG (2.0%, IQR 0.0% to 4.5% vs. 3.2%, IQR 1.2% to 6.0%, P = 0.001).ConclusionsBias between the TOF Watch SX and the Tetragraph TOF-ratios is in line with previous results for AMG and EMG monitors.Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.