Barriers and aids to routine neuromuscular monitoring and consistent reversal practice-A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular monitoring is recommended whenever a neuromuscular blocking agent is administered, but surveys have demonstrated inconsistent monitoring practices. Using qualitative methods, we aimed to explore barriers and aids to routine neuromuscular monitoring and consistent reversal practice. METHODS: Focus group interviews were conducted to obtain insights into the thoughts and attitudes of individual anaesthetists, as well as the influence of colleagues and department culture. Interviews were conducted at five Danish and one US hospital. Data were analysed using template analysis. RESULTS: Danish anaesthetists used objective neuromuscular monitoring when administering a non-depolarizing relaxant, but had challenges with calibrating the monitor and sometimes interpreting measurements. Residents from the US institution used subjective neuromuscular monitoring, objective neuromuscular monitoring was generally not available and most had not used it. Danish anaesthetists used neuromuscular monitoring to assess readiness for extubation, whereas US residents used subjective neuromuscular monitoring, clinical tests like 5-second head lift and ventilatory parameters. The residents described a lack of consensus between senior anaesthesiologists in reversal practice and monitoring use. Barriers to consistent and correct neuromuscular monitoring identified included unreliable equipment, time pressure, need for training, misconceptions about pharmacokinetics of neuromuscular blocking agents and residual block, lack of standards and guidelines and departmental culture. CONCLUSION: Using qualitative methods, we found that though Danish anaesthetists generally apply objective neuromuscular monitoring routinely and residents at the US institution often apply subjective neuromuscular monitoring, barriers to consistent and correct use still exist.

Avoidance versus use of neuromuscular blocking agents for improving conditions during tracheal intubation or direct laryngoscopy in adults and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation during induction of general anaesthesia is a vital procedure performed to secure a patient's airway. Several studies have identified difficult tracheal intubation (DTI) or failed tracheal intubation as one of the major contributors to anaesthesia-related mortality and morbidity. Use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) to facilitate tracheal intubation is a widely accepted practice. However, because of adverse effects, NMBA may be undesirable. Cohort studies have indicated that avoiding NMBA is an independent risk factor for difficult and failed tracheal intubation. However, no systematic review of randomized trials has evaluated conditions for tracheal intubation, possible adverse effects, and postoperative discomfort. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of avoiding neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) versus using NMBA on difficult tracheal intubation (DTI) for adults and adolescents allocated to tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy. To look at various outcomes, conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses, examine the role of bias, and apply trial sequential analysis (TSA) to examine the level of available evidence for this intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, International Web of Science, LILACS, advanced Google, CINAHL, and the following trial registries: Current Controlled Trials; ClinicalTrials.gov; and www.centerwatch.com, up to January 2017. We checked the reference lists of included trials and reviews to look for unidentified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of avoiding versus using NMBA in participants 14 years of age or older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used published data and data obtained by contacting trial authors. To minimize the risk of systematic error, we assessed the risk of bias of included trials. To reduce the risk of random errors caused by sparse data and repetitive updating of cumulative meta-analyses, we applied TSA. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 34 RCTs with 3565 participants that met our inclusion criteria. All trials reported on conditions for tracheal intubation; seven trials with 846 participants described 'events of upper airway discomfort or injury', and 13 trials with 1308 participants reported on direct laryngoscopy. All trials used a parallel design. We identified 18 dose-finding studies that included more interventions or control groups or both. All trials except three included only American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I and II participants, 25 trials excluded participants with anticipated DTI, and obesity or overweight was an excluding factor in 13 studies. Eighteen trials used suxamethonium, and 18 trials used non-depolarizing NMBA.Trials with an overall low risk of bias reported significantly increased risk of DTI with no use of NMBA (random-effects model) (RR 13.27, 95% CI 8.19 to 21.49; P < 0.00001; 508 participants; four trials; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 1.9, I2 = 0%, D2 = 0%, GRADE = moderate). The TSA-adjusted CI for the RR was 1.85 to 95.04. Inclusion of all trials resulted in confirmation of results and of significantly increased risk of DTI when an NMBA was avoided (random-effects model) (RR 5.00, 95% CI 3.49 to 7.15; P < 0.00001; 3565 participants; 34 trials; NNTH = 6.3, I2 = 70%, D2 = 82%, GRADE = low). Again the cumulative z-curve crossed the TSA monitoring boundary, demonstrating harmful effects of avoiding NMBA on the proportion of DTI with minimal risk of random error. We categorized only one trial reporting on upper airway discomfort or injury as having overall low risk of bias. Inclusion of all trials revealed significant risk of upper airway discomfort or injury when an NMBA was avoided (random-effects model) (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.74; P = 0.008; 846 participants; seven trials; NNTH = 9.1, I2 = 13%, GRADE = moderate). The TSA-adjusted CI for the RR was 1.00 to 1.85. None of these trials reported mortality. In terms of our secondary outcome 'difficult laryngoscopy', we categorized only one trial as having overall low risk of bias. All trials avoiding NMBA were significantly associated with difficult laryngoscopy (random-effects model) (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.21; P = 0.0003; 1308 participants; 13 trials; NNTH = 25.6, I2 = 0%, D2= 0%, GRADE = low); however, TSA showed that only 6% of the information size required to detect or reject a 20% relative risk reduction (RRR) was accrued, and the trial sequential monitoring boundary was not crossed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review supports that use of an NMBA may create the best conditions for tracheal intubation and may reduce the risk of upper airway discomfort or injury following tracheal intubation. Study results were characterized by indirectness, heterogeneity, and high or uncertain risk of bias concerning our primary outcome describing difficult tracheal intubation. Therefore, we categorized the GRADE classification of quality of evidence as moderate to low. In light of defined outcomes of individual included trials, our primary outcomes may not reflect a situation that many clinicians consider to be an actual difficult tracheal intubation by which the patient's life or health may be threatened.