Area Under the Curve and Amplitude of the Compound Motor Action Potential Are Clinically Interchangeable Quantitative Measures of Neuromuscular Block: a Method Comparison Study

Overview

Journal BJA Open

Specialty Anesthesiology

Date 2024 Jul 8

PMID 38974718

Authors

Richard H Epstein

Reka Nemes

Johnathan R Renew

Sorin J Brull

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Current guidelines recommend quantitative neuromuscular block monitoring during neuromuscular blocking agent administration. Monitors using surface electromyography (EMG) determine compound motor action potential (cMAP) amplitude or area under the curve (AUC). Rigorous evaluation of the interchangeability of these methods is lacking but necessary for clinical and research assurance that EMG interpretations of the depth of neuromuscular block are not affected by the methodology.

Methods: Digitised EMG waveforms were studied from 48 patients given rocuronium during two published studies. The EMG amplitudes and AUCs were calculated pairwise from all cMAPs classified as valid by visual inspection. Ratios of the first twitch (T) to the control T before administration of rocuronium (Tc) and train-of-four ratios (TOFRs) were compared using repeated measures Bland-Altman analysis.

Results: Among the 2419 paired T/Tc differences where the average T/Tc was ≤0.2, eight (0.33%) were outside prespecified clinical limits of agreement (-0.148 to 0.164). Among the 1781 paired TOFR differences where the average TOFR was ≥0.8, 70 (3.93%) were outside the prespecified clinical limits of agreement ((-0.109 to 0.134). Among all 7286 T/Tc paired differences, the mean bias was 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.202-0.043), and among all 5559 paired TOFR differences, the mean bias was 0.011 (95% confidence interval 0.0050-0.017). Among paired T/Tc and TOFR differences, Lin's concordance correlation coefficients were 0.98 and 0.995, respectively. Repeatability coefficients for T/Tc and TOFR were <0.08, with no differences between methods.

Conclusions: Quantitative assessment neuromuscular block depth is clinically interchangeable when calculated using cMAP amplitude or the AUC.

References

Iwasaki H, Yamamoto M, Sato H, Doshu-Kajiura A, Kitajima O, Takagi S . A Comparison Between the Adductor Pollicis Muscle Using TOF-Watch SX and the Abductor Digiti Minimi Muscle Using TetraGraph in Rocuronium-Induced Neuromuscular Block: A Prospective Observational Study. Anesth Analg. 2022; 135(2):370-375. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005897. View

Giudici G, Piccioni F, Proto P, Valenza F . A comparison of accelerometric monitoring by TOF Watch® SX and electromyographic monitoring by Tetragraph® for recovery from neuromuscular blockade. J Clin Anesth. 2021; 75:110481. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110481. View

Zou G . Confidence interval estimation for the Bland-Altman limits of agreement with multiple observations per individual. Stat Methods Med Res. 2011; 22(6):630-42. DOI: 10.1177/0962280211402548. View

Bland J, Altman D . Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8(2):135-60. DOI: 10.1177/096228029900800204. View

Pugh N, Kay B, Healy T . Electromyography in anaesthesia. A comparison between two methods. Anaesthesia. 1984; 39(6):574-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1984.tb07365.x. View

Brull S, Kopman A . Current Status of Neuromuscular Reversal and Monitoring: Challenges and Opportunities. Anesthesiology. 2016; 126(1):173-190. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001409. View

Carstensen B, Simpson J, Gurrin L . Statistical models for assessing agreement in method comparison studies with replicate measurements. Int J Biostat. 2012; 4(1):Article 16. DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1107. View

Bowdle A, Bussey L, Michaelsen K, Jelacic S, Nair B, Togashi K . Counting train-of-four twitch response: comparison of palpation to mechanomyography, acceleromyography, and electromyography. Br J Anaesth. 2020; 124(6):712-717. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.02.022. View

Thilen S, Weigel W, Todd M, Dutton R, Lien C, Grant S . 2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Monitoring and Antagonism of Neuromuscular Blockade: A Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Neuromuscular Blockade. Anesthesiology. 2022; 138(1):13-41. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004379. View

10.

Abu-Arafeh A, Jordan H, Drummond G . Reporting of method comparison studies: a review of advice, an assessment of current practice, and specific suggestions for future reports. Br J Anaesth. 2016; 117(5):569-575. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew320. View

11.

Engbaek J, Roed J, Hangaard N, Viby-Mogensen J . The agreement between adductor pollicis mechanomyogram and first dorsal interosseous electromyogram. A pharmacodynamic study of rocuronium and vecuronium. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1994; 38(8):869-78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1994.tb04020.x. View

12.

Engbaek J, Skovgaard L, Friis B, Kann T, Viby-Mogensen J . Monitoring of the neuromuscular transmission by electromyography (I). Stability and temperature dependence of evoked EMG response compared to mechanical twitch recordings in the cat. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1992; 36(6):495-504. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1992.tb03506.x. View

13.

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. View

14.

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

15.

Fuchs-Buder T, Romero C, Lewald H, Lamperti M, Afshari A, Hristovska A . Peri-operative management of neuromuscular blockade: A guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2022; 40(2):82-94. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001769. View

16.

Chaves-Cardona H, Fouda E, Hernandez-Torres V, Torp K, Logvinov I, Heckman M . Comparison of onset of neuromuscular blockade with electromyographic and acceleromyographic monitoring: a prospective clinical trial. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2023; 73(4):393-400. PMC: 10362458. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2023.04.004. View

17.

Santanen O, Paloheimo M . Effects of small peripheral temperature changes on the evoked baseline electromyographic response. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1999; 43(3):338-42. DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-6576.1999.430316.x. View

18.

Viby-Mogensen J, Jensen E, Werner M, Nielsen H . Measurement of acceleration: a new method of monitoring neuromuscular function. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1988; 32(1):45-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1988.tb02686.x. View

19.

Carvalho H, Verdonck M, Brull S, Fuchs-Buder T, Forget P, Flamee P . A survey on the availability, usage and perception of neuromuscular monitors in Europe. J Clin Monit Comput. 2022; 37(2):549-558. DOI: 10.1007/s10877-022-00922-1. View

20.

Nemes R, Lengyel S, Nagy G, Hampton D, Gray M, Renew J . Ipsilateral and Simultaneous Comparison of Responses from Acceleromyography- and Electromyography-based Neuromuscular Monitors. Anesthesiology. 2021; 135(4):597-611. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003896. View