Influence of tetanic stimulation on the staircase phenomenon and the acceleromyographic time-course of neuromuscular block: a randomized controlled trial
- 69 Downloads
During neuromuscular monitoring, repeated electrical stimulation evokes muscle responses of increasing magnitude (‘staircase phenomenon’, SP). We aimed to evaluate whether SP affects time course and twitches’ values of an acceleromyographic assessed neuromuscular block with or without previous tetanic stimulation. Fifty adult patients were randomized to receive a 50 Hz tetanic stimulus (S group) or not (C group) before monitor calibration. After 20 min of TOF ratio (TOFr) stimulation rocuronium was administered. Onset time of block (primary endpoint), recovery of T1 to 25%, TOFr to 0.9, and recovery index were compared. We also compared T1 and TOFr at baseline, post-stimulation, and during recovery from block. Moreover the correlation between T1 at maximum recovery and (a) baseline T1 and (b) post-stimulation T1 along with T1/TOFr ratio during recovery were evaluated. After stimulation median T1 increased (32%) in group C and decreased (16%) in group S (P = 0.0001). Onset time (Median [IQR] in seconds) was 90 (29–77) vs. 75 (28–60) in C and S group (P = 0.002). Time [Mean (SD) in minutes] to normalized TOFr 0.9 were 70.13 (14.9) vs. 62.1 (21.2) in C and S groups (P = 0.204). TOFr showed no differences between groups at any time point. T1 at maximum recovery showed a stronger correlation with post-stabilization T1 compared to baseline. (ρ = 0.80 and ρ = 0.85, for C and S groups.) Standard calibration does not ensure twitch baseline stabilization and prolongs onset time of neuromuscular block. TOF ratio is not influenced by SP.
KeywordsPerioperative monitoring Neuromuscular blockade Neuromuscular blocking agents Perioperative medicine
No funding was received for the conduct of this study and no sponsor was required.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
GM and MMF have no conflict of interest. CLE and OD received payment for educational talks and scientific conferences from MSD (Merck Sharp & Dohme, Inc.). No conflict of interests related with the present work.
Ethical approval was granted by the applicable Institutional Review Board as detailed in the text.
- 2.Della Rocca G, Iannuccelli F, Pompei L, Pietropaoli P, Reale C, Di Marco P. Neuromuscular block in Italy: a survey of current management. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012;78(7):767–73.Google Scholar
- 3.McCoy EP, Mirakhur RK, Connolly FM, Loan PB. The infuence of the duration of control stimulationon the onset and recovery of neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg. 1995;80(2):364–7.Google Scholar
- 7.Engbaek J. Monitoring of neuromuscular transmission by electromyography during anaesthesia. A comparison with mechanomyography in cat and man. Dan Med Bull. 1996;43(4):301–16.Google Scholar
- 9.McCoy E, Mirakhur R, Connolly F, Loan P. The influence of the duration of control stimulation on the onset and recovery of neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg. 1995;80(2):364–7.Google Scholar
- 13.Carlos R, de Boer H, Torres M, Carmona M. The effect of prior tetanic stimulation on train-of-four monitoring in paediatric patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34(3):163–68.Google Scholar
- 20.Viegas O, Kopman AF, Klewicka MM. An open label, parallel group, comparative randomized multicenter trial to compare the time course of the neuromuscular effects and safety of Raplon (rapacuronium bromide) for injection and mivacurium in adults. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:S211.Google Scholar
- 26.Organon. (Ireland) Ltd. DRSCDI. TOF-WATCH SX Operator manual 33.512/A.: p. 10.Google Scholar
- 27.Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies with applications to linear models, logistic regression and survival analysis. New York: Springer; 2001.Google Scholar
- 29.Piotrkiewicz M, Celichowski J. Tetanic potentiation in motor units of rat medial gastrocnemius. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2007;67(1):35–42.Google Scholar
- 32.Persechini A, Stull J, Cooke R. The effect of myosin phosphorylation on the contractile properties of skinned rabbit skeletal nuscle fibers. J Biol Chem. 1985;260:7951–4.Google Scholar