Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 690  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    


ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 361-367

Optimised reversal without train-of-four monitoring versus reversal using quantitative train-of-four monitoring: An equivalence study


Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Faculty of Medical, Public Health and Nursing, University of Gadjah Mada/Dr. Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ardyan Wardhana
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Kesehatan Street, Yogyakarta
Indonesia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_94_19

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aims: Less residual paralysis in recovery room was demonstrated when train-of-four (TOF) monitoring was applied. The aim of this study was to know whether optimisation of neostigmine reversal without TOF monitoring was equivalent to reversal using TOF monitoring. Methods: Seventy two patients, aged 18–60 years, undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia (sevoflurane and rocuronium) with intubation were randomised into two interventions: an optimised neostigmine reversal strategy without TOF monitoring (group A, n = 36) and a neostigmine reversal strategy using quantitative TOF monitoring (group B, n = 36). Per-protocol analysis was performed to compare incidence of residual paralysis in the recovery room between the two groups. Results: Six residual paralyses occurred in group A in the recovery room, whereas one case occurred in group B. The equivalence test showed that the 95% confidence interval of this study was outside the range of equivalence margin (15%). The absolute difference was 13.9%: standard error (SE) =0.068 (P = 0.107; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1%, 27.2%). No subjects had TOF ratio <0.70 in the recovery room. The TOF ratio in the recovery room did not differ between the two groups (mean difference: −2.58; P = 0.05; 95% CI: −5.20, 0.29). One respiratory adverse event occurred in this study. Conclusion: An optimised reversal strategy without TOF monitoring is not equivalent to a reversal strategy based on quantitative TOF monitoring. TOF monitoring should be used whenever applicable, although neostigmine is optimised.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1172    
    Printed29    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded295    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal