首页> 外文期刊>Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica >Acceleromyography and mechanomyography for establishing potency of neuromuscular blocking agents: a randomized-controlled trial.
【24h】

Acceleromyography and mechanomyography for establishing potency of neuromuscular blocking agents: a randomized-controlled trial.

机译:建立神经肌肉阻滞剂效力的加速肌电描记法和机械描记法:一项随机对照试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Acceleromyography (AMG) is increasingly being used in neuromuscular research, including in studies establishing the potency of neuromuscular blocking and reversal agents. However, AMG is insufficiently validated for use interchangeably with the gold standard, mechanomyography (MMG) for this purpose. The aim of this study was to compare AMG and MMG for establishing dose-response relationship and potency, using rocuronium as an example. METHODS: We included 40 adult patients in this randomized-controlled single-dose response study. Anaesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol and opioid. Neuromuscular blockade was induced with rocuronium 100, 150, 200 or 250 microg/kg. Neuromuscular monitoring was performed with AMG (TOF-Watch SX) with pre-load (Hand Adapter) at one arm and MMG (modified TOF-Watch SX) on the other, using 0.1 Hz single twitch stimulation. Dose-response relationships were determined for both recording methods using log (dose) against probit (maximum block). The obtainedslopes of the regression lines, ED(50), ED(95) and the maximum block were compared. RESULTS: The ED(50) and ED(95) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for AMG were 185 microg/kg(167-205 microg/kg) and 368 microg/kg(288-470 microg/kg), compared with 174 microg/kg(159-191 microg/kg) and 338 microg/kg(273-418 microg/kg) for MMG. There were no statistically significant biases in maximum block, ED(50), ED(95) or slopes obtained with the two methods. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that any possible difference between AMG and MMG is so small that it justifies AMG to be used for establishing the potency of neuromuscular blocking agents. However, the wide CIs show that we cannot rule out a 13% higher ED(50) and a 26% higher ED(95) for AMG.
机译:背景:加速肌电描记术(AMG)越来越多地用于神经肌肉研究中,包括用于建立神经肌肉阻滞和逆转剂效力的研究中。但是,AMG没有得到充分验证,无法与金标准机械分类法(MMG)互换使用。这项研究的目的是以罗库溴铵为例,比较AMG和MMG在建立剂量反应关系和效价方面的作用。方法:我们在这项随机对照的单剂量反应研究中纳入了40名成年患者。用丙泊酚和阿片样物质诱导并维持麻醉。罗库溴铵100、150、200或250 microg / kg引起神经肌肉阻滞。使用0.1 Hz单次抽动刺激,在一只手臂上预加载(手动适配器)的AMG(TOF-Watch SX)和另一只手臂上的MMG(改良的TOF-Watch SX)进行神经肌肉监测。确定两种记录方法的剂量反应关系,使用对数位(最大阻滞)的对数(剂量)。比较了回归线ED(50),ED(95)和最大块的斜率。结果:AMG的ED(50)和ED(95)[95%置信区间(CI)]为185 microg / kg(167-205 microg / kg)和368 microg / kg(288-470 microg / kg),相比之下,MMG为174微克/千克(159-191微克/千克)和338微克/千克(273-418微克/千克)。两种方法获得的最大阻滞,ED(50),ED(95)或斜率均无统计学意义的偏差。结论:我们的结果表明AMG和MMG之间的任何可能差异都很小,以至于证明AMG可用于确定神经肌肉阻滞剂的效力。但是,广泛的配置项表明,我们不能排除AMG的ED(50)高13%和ED(95)高26%。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号