Accuracy and Precision of Three Acceleromyographs, Three Electromyographs, and a Mechanomyograph Measuring the Train-of-four Ratio in the Absence of Neuromuscular Blocking Drugs.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy and precision of currently available, widely used acceleromyograph and electromyograph neuromuscular blockade monitors have not been well studied. In addition, the normalization of the train-of-four ratio from acceleromyography (train-of-four ratio [T4/T1] divided by the baseline train-of-four ratio) has not been validated in comparison to mechanomyography. METHODS: Enrolled patients had surgery under general anesthesia with a supraglottic airway and without any neuromuscular blocking drugs. Three acceleromyograph monitors, three electromyograph monitors, and a mechanomyograph built in the authors' laboratory were tested. Most patients had an electromyograph and the mechanomyograph on one arm and a third monitor on the contralateral arm. Train-of-four ratios were collected every 12 to 20 s for the duration of the anesthetic. At least 1,000 train-of-four ratios were recorded for each device. Gauge repeatability and reproducibility analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled. In total, 9,498 train-of-four ratio measurements were collected. Since no neuromuscular blocking drugs were used, the expected train-of-four ratio was 1.0. All of the acceleromyograph monitors produced overshoot in the train-of-four ratio (estimated means, 1.10 to 1.13) and substantial variability (gauge SDs, 0.07 to 0.18). Normalization of the train-of-four ratio measured by acceleromyography improved the estimated mean for each device (0.97 to 1.0), but the variability was not improved (gauge SDs, 0.06 to 0.17). The electromyograph and the mechanomyograph monitors produced minimal overshoot (estimated means, 0.99 to 1.01) and substantially less variation (gauge SDs, 0.01 to 0.02). For electromyography and mechanomyography, 0.3% of all train-of-four ratios were outside of the range 0.9 to 1.1. For acceleromyography, 27 to 51% of normalized train-of-four ratios were outside the range of 0.9 to 1.1. CONCLUSIONS: Three currently available acceleromyograph monitors produced overshoot and substantial variability that could be clinically significant. Normalization corrected the overshoot in the average results but did not reduce the wide variability. Three electromyograph monitors measured the train-of-four ratio with minimal overshoot and variability, similar to a mechanomyograph.

Evolution of a laboratory mechanomyograph.

Mechanomyography is currently the accepted laboratory reference standard for quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring. Mechanomyographs are not commercially available. Previously, a mechanomyograph was built by our laboratory and used in several clinical studies. It was subsequently redesigned to improve its usability and functionality and to accommodate a wider range of hand sizes and shapes using an iterative design process. Each version of the redesigned device was initially tested for usability and functionality in the lab with the investigators as subjects without electrical stimulation. The redesigned devices were then assessed on patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia without neuromuscular blocking drugs. Since the patients were not paralyzed, the expected train-of-four ratio was 1.0. The device accuracy and precision were represented by the train-of-four ratio mean and standard deviation. If issues with the device's useability or functionality were discovered, changes were made, and the redesign processes repeated. The final mechanomyograph design was used to collect 2,362 train-of-four ratios from 21 patients. The mean and standard deviation of the train-of-four ratios were 0.99 ± 0.030. Additionally, the final mechanomyograph design was easier to use and adjust than the original design and fit a wider range of hand sizes. The final design also reduced the frequency of adjustments and the time needed for adjustments, facilitating data collection during a surgical procedure.

Comparative performance of stimpod electromyography with mechanomyography for quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the Stimpod electromyograph neuromuscular blockade monitor to mechanomyography, which is widely considered to be the reference standard. METHODS: The Stimpod electromyograph was used with its designated electrode array on the same hand as the mechanomyograph. Pairs of train-of-four measurements were recorded every 0.5-2 min. When the train-of-four count was zero on the electromyograph monitor, pairs of post tetanic count measurements were recorded every 2.5 min, instead of train-of-four measurements. Measurements were recorded from immediately after induction of anesthesia until just before emergence. Stimulation current was set to 60 mA with a duration of 200 microsec. The mechanomyography recording system recorded each twitch waveform for analysis. High resolution electromyograph waveforms were also recorded using a datalogger accessory provided by the manufacturer, facilitating inspection of individual waveforms. The administration of neuromuscular blocking drugs was left up to the discretion of the anesthesia care team. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients contributed 1,088 data pairs suitable for analysis. Bland-Altman analysis of 415 pairs of train-of-four ratios showed a bias of 0.028 and limits of agreement of -0.18 and 0.24. Two hundred seventy-three train-of-four count data pairs were compared by Cohen's quadratically weighted kappa which was calculated to be 0.44, indicating moderate agreement. Three hundred thirty-eight post tetanic count data pairs were compared by Cohen's quadradically weighted kappa which was calculated to be 0.80, indicating substantial agreement. CONCLUSION: The electromyograph produced results that were comparable to the mechanomyograph.