Background Complete avoidance of residual neuromuscular blockade (RNMB) during the postoperative period has not yet been achieved in current anesthesia practice. Evidently, compliance with NMB monitoring is persistently low, and the risk of RNMB during the perioperative period remains underestimated. To our knowledge, no publications have reported the incidence of RNMB in a university hospital where access to quantitative NMB monitoring and sugammadex is unlimited and where NMB management is not protocolised. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of RNMB in patients managed with or without sugammadex or neostigmine as antagonists and quantitative NMB monitoring in the operating room. The secondary aim was to explore the associations between RNMB and potentially related variables. Methods This retrospective observational cohort study was conducted at a tertiary referral university hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Records created between June 2015 and December 2015 were reviewed. In total, 240 consecutive patients who had undergone elective surgical procedures requiring NMB were included. All patients were monitored via acceleromyography at the adductor pollicis muscle within 5 min of arrival in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). Scheduled recovery in the intensive care unit was the only exclusion criterion. Results RNMB was present in 1.6% patients who received intra-operative quantitative NMB monitoring and 32% patients whose NMB was not monitored ( P <  0.01). Multivariable analysis revealed that the use of intra-operative quantitative NMB monitoring and sugammadex were associated with a lower incidence of RNMB, with calculated odds ratios of 0.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.005 to 0.401) and 0.18 (95% CI: 0.046 to 0.727), respectively. Conclusions The results of the present study suggest that intra-operative quantitative NMB monitoring and use of sugammadex are associated with a decreased incidence of RNMB in the PACU, reinforcing the contention that the optimal strategy for RNMB avoidance is the use of quantitative NMB monitoring and eventual use of reversal agents, if needed, prior to emergence from anaesthesia.

Background: Current neuromuscular blockade (NMB) management techniques cannot completely prevent residual NMB (RNMB) during the postoperative period. Evidently, compliance to NMB monitoring is persistently low, and the risk of RNMB during the perioperative period remains underestimated. We have not found publications that report the incidence of RNMB in a university hospital where access to quantitative NMB monitoring and sugammadex is unlimited and where NMB management is not protocolised. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of RNMB in patients managed with or without sugammadex or neostigmine as antagonists and quantitative NMB monitoring in the operating room. The secondary aim was to explore the associations between RNMB and potentially related variables. Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study was conducted at a tertiary referral university hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Records created between June 2015 and December 2015 were reviewed. In total, 240 consecutive patients who had undergone elective surgical procedures requiring NMB were included. All patients were monitored via acceleromyography at the adductor pollicis muscle within 5 min of arrival in the postanaesthesia care unit. Scheduled recovery in the intensive care unit was the only exclusion criterion. The primary outcome was the presence of RNMB, defined as a train-of-four ratio of <0.9. The secondary outcomes were the associations between RNMB and potentially related variables. Results: RNMB was present in 1.6% patients who received intra-operative quantitative NMB monitoring and 32% patients whose NMB was not monitored (P<0.01). Multivariable analysis revealed that the use of intra-operative quantitative NMB monitoring and sugammadex were associated with a lower incidence of RNMB, with calculated odds ratios of 0.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.005 to 0.401) and 0.18 (95% CI: 0.046 to 0.727), respectively. Conclusions: The results of the present study suggest that quantitative intra-operative NMB monitoring and use of sugammadex are associated with a decreased incidence of RNMB in the PACU, reinforcing the contention that the optimal strategy for RNMB avoidance is the use of quantitative NMB monitoring and eventual use of reversal agents, if needed, prior to emergence from anaesthesia.

No abstract

Background: Propofol sedation is effective for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, but its narrow therapeutic window highlights the importance of identifying an optimal administration technique regarding effectiveness and safety. This study aimed to determine the incidence of significant adverse events in adult patients scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy under anaesthetist-performed sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion and determine the existence of associations between these events and potentially related variables. Methods: This single-centre, retrospective cohort study took place in a tertiary referral university hospital. Medical records of 823 patients (age > 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification scores I-III) who had undergone elective gastrointestinal endoscopy under propofol target-controlled infusion sedation during September 2018 were reviewed. Outcomes included hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia events, requirement of vasoactive drugs, unplanned tracheal intubation or supraglottic device insertion, and need for advanced cardiac life support.

Background: Propofol sedation is effective for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, but its narrow therapeutic window highlights the importance of identifying an optimal administration technique regarding effectiveness and safety. This study aimed to determine the incidence of significant adverse events in adult patients scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy under anaesthetist-performed sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion and determine its potentially improved safety over other anaesthetic strategies. Methods: This single-centre, retrospective cohort study took place in a tertiary referral university hospital. Medical records of 823 patients (age >18 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification scores I–III) who had undergone elective gastrointestinal endoscopy under propofol target-controlled infusion sedation during September 2018 were reviewed. Outcomes included hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia events, requirement of vasoactive drugs, unplanned tracheal intubation or supraglottic device insertion, and need for advanced cardiac life support. Results: The most frequently encountered adverse event was oxygen desaturation <95% with an incidence of 22.35%. Vasoactive drug administration, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation <90% followed, with incidences of 19.2%, 12.64%, and 9.92%, respectively. Only 0.5% of patients required advanced airway management. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between hypotension events, colonoscopic procedures, and propofol doses (odds ratio: 3.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.43 to 6.61; P=0.004 and odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.29; P=0.046). A strong dose-effect relationship was found between hypoxia and obesity; patients with body mass index ≥40 were nine times (odds ratio: 10.22, confidence interval: 95% 2.83 to 36.99) more likely to experience oxygen desaturation <90% events. Conclusions: Propofol sedation using target-controlled infusion appears to be a safe and effective anaesthetic technique for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with low rates of adverse events and could be more widely adopted in clinical practice.