On-demand versus continuous rocuronium infusion for deep neuromuscular relaxation in patients undergoing thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy: a randomized-controlled clinical trial (DEPTH)

Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred option for many procedures. To properly perform laparoscopic surgery, it is essential that sudden movements and abdominal contractions in patients are prevented, as it limits the surgeon's view. There has been a growing interest in the potential beneficial effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in laparoscopic surgery. Deep NMB improves the surgical field by preventing abdominal contractions, and it is thought to decrease postoperative pain. However, it is uncertain if deep NMB improves intraoperative safety and thereby improves clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of deep neuromuscular blockade versus no, shallow, or moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults undergoing laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures comparing deep NMB to moderate, shallow, or no NMB. We excluded trials that did not report any of the primary or secondary outcomes of our review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life, and 3. proportion of participants with serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. proportion of participants with non-serious adverse events, 5. readmissions within three months, 6. short-term pain scores, 7. measurements of postoperative recovery, and 8. operating time. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 randomised clinical trials with 3898 participants. Most trials included participants undergoing intraperitoneal oncological resection surgery. We present the Peto fixed-effect model for most dichotomous outcomes as only sparse events were reported. Comparison 1: deep versus moderate NMB Thirty-eight trials compared deep versus moderate NMB. Deep NMB may have no effect on mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 115.43; 12 trials, 1390 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life up to four days postoperative (mean difference (MD) 4.53 favouring deep NMB on the Quality of Recovery-40 score, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.09; 5 trials, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean difference lower than the mean clinically important difference of 10 points). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB on intraoperatively serious adverse events (deep NMB 38/1150 versus moderate NMB 38/1076; Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52; 21 trials, 2231 participants; very low-certainty evidence), short-term serious adverse events (up to 60 days) (deep NMB 37/912 versus moderate NMB 42/852; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 16 trials, 1764 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and short-term non-serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35; 11 trials, 1232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely does not alter the duration of surgery (MD -0.51 minutes, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.32; 34 trials, 3143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if deep NMB alters the length of hospital stay (MD -0.22 days, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 19 trials, 2084 participants; low-certainty evidence) or pain scores one hour after surgery (MD -0.31 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; 22 trials, 1823 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point) and 24 hours after surgery (MD -0.60 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 16 trials, 1404 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point). Comparison 2: deep versus shallow NMB Three trials compared deep versus shallow NMB. The trials did not report on mortality and health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB compared to shallow NMB on the proportion of serious adverse events (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.57; 2 trials, 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3: deep versus no NMB One trial compared deep versus no NMB. There was no mortality in this trial, and health-related quality of life was not reported. The proportion of serious adverse events was 0/25 in the deep NMB group and 1/25 in the no NMB group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of deep NMB compared to moderate NMB on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life and duration of surgery compared to moderate NMB, and it may have no effect on the length of hospital stay. Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we do not know what the effect is of deep NMB on non-serious adverse events, pain scores, or readmission rates. Randomised clinical trials with adequate reporting of all adverse events would reduce the current uncertainties. Due to the low number of identified trials and the very low certainty of evidence, we do not know what the effect of deep NMB on serious adverse events is compared to shallow NMB and no NMB. We found no trials evaluating mortality and health-related quality of life.

Effect of quantitative versus qualitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring on rocuronium consumption in patients undergoing abdominal and gynecological surgery: a retrospective cohort study

The level of neuromuscular blockade can be assessed by subjective (qualitative) and objective (quantitative) methods. This study aims to compare the dosage of the neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) rocuronium and the need for reversion by sugammadex between those methods. A retrospective, observational analysis was conducted. In the tactile qualitative-neuromuscular monitoring-group (tactile NMM) (n = 244), muscle contractions were assessed tactilely. In the quantitative neuromuscular monitoring-group (n = 295), contractions were accessed using an acceleromyograph. Primary endpoints were dosage of rocuronium per minute operation-time (milligram per kilogram bodyweight per minute (mg/kgBW/min)), count of repeated rocuronium administrations and use of sugammadex. Secondary endpoints were: NMM use before repeated NMBA application or extubation, time to extubation, post-operative oxygen demand. A total of n = 539 patients were included. n = 244 patients were examined with tactile NMM and 295 patients by quantitative NMM. Quantitative NMM use resulted in significantly lower rocuronium dosing (tactile NMM: 0.01 (± 0.007) mg/kgBW/min vs. quantitative NMM: 0.008 (± 0.006) mg/kgBW/min (p < 0.001)). In quantitative NMM use fewer repetitions of rocuronium application were necessary (tactile NMM: 83% (n = 202) vs. quantitative NMM: 71% (n = 208) p = 0.007). Overall, 24% (n = 58) in the tactile NMM-group, and 20% (n = 60) in the quantitative NMM-group received sugammadex ((p = 0.3), OR: 1.21 (0.81-1.82)). Significantly fewer patients in the quantitative NMM-group required oxygen-supply postoperative (quantitative NMM: 43% (n = 120)) vs. tactile NMM: 57% (n = 128)) (p = 0.002). The use of quantitative assessment of NMBA results in a lower overall dosage and requires fewer repetitions of rocuronium application. Therefore, quantitative monitoring systems should be used to monitor NMBA intraoperatively to reduce NMBA dosing, while achieving continuous neuromuscular blockade.

Peri-operative management of neuromuscular blockade: A guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care

Recent data indicated a high incidence of inappropriate management of neuromuscular block, with a high rate of residual paralysis and relaxant-associated postoperative complications. These data are alarming in that the available neuromuscular monitoring, as well as myorelaxants and their antagonists basically allow well tolerated management of neuromuscular blockade. In this first European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) guideline on peri-operative management of neuromuscular block, we aim to present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians provide best medical care and ensure patient safety. We identified three main clinical questions: Are myorelaxants necessary to facilitate tracheal intubation in adults? Does the intensity of neuromuscular blockade influence a patient's outcome in abdominal surgery? What are the strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of residual paralysis? On the basis of this, PICO (patient, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. A stepwise approach was used to reduce the number of trials of the initial research ( n  = 24 000) to the finally relevant clinical studies ( n  = 88). GRADE methodology (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used for formulating the recommendations based on the findings of the included studies in conjunction with their methodological quality. A two-step Delphi process was used to determine the agreement of the panel members with the recommendations: R1 We recommend using a muscle relaxant to facilitate tracheal intubation (1A). R2 We recommend the use of muscle relaxants to reduce pharyngeal and/or laryngeal injury following endotracheal intubation (1C). R3 We recommend the use of a fast-acting muscle relaxant for rapid sequence induction intubation (RSII) such as succinylcholine 1 mg kg -1 or rocuronium 0.9 to 1.2 mg kg -1 (1B). R4 We recommend deepening neuromuscular blockade if surgical conditions need to be improved (1B). R5 There is insufficient evidence to recommend deep neuromuscular blockade in general to reduce postoperative pain or decrease the incidence of peri-operative complications. (2C). R6 We recommend the use of ulnar nerve stimulation and quantitative neuromuscular monitoring at the adductor pollicis muscle to exclude residual paralysis (1B). R7 We recommend using sugammadex to antagonise deep, moderate and shallow neuromuscular blockade induced by aminosteroidal agents (rocuronium, vecuronium) (1A). R8 We recommend advanced spontaneous recovery (i.e. TOF ratio >0.2) before starting neostigmine-based reversal and to continue quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular blockade until a TOF ratio of more than 0.9 has been attained. (1C).

Pro-Con Debate: Do We Need Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring in the Era of Sugammadex?

In this Pro-Con article, we debate the merits of using quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring. Consensus guidelines recommend their use to guide the administration of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade and reversal agents. A major impediment to this guideline is that until recently, reliable quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitors have not been widely available. Without them, anesthesia providers have been trained with and are adept at using a variety of qualitative neuromuscular blockade monitors otherwise known as peripheral nerve stimulators. Although perhaps less accurate, anesthesia providers find them reliable and easy to use. They have a long track record of using them with the perception that their use leads to effective neuromuscular blockade reversal and minimizes clinically significant adverse events from residual neuromuscular blockade. In the recent past, 2 disruptive developments have called upon anesthesia care providers to reconsider their practice in neuromuscular blockade administration, reversal, and monitoring. These include: (1) commercialization of more reliable quantitative neuromuscular monitors and (2) widespread use of sugammadex, a versatile reversal agent of neuromuscular blockade. Sugammadex appears to be so effective at rapidly and effectively reversing even the deepest of neuromuscular blockades, and it has left anesthesia providers wondering whether quantitative monitoring is indeed necessary or whether conventional, familiar, and less expensive qualitative monitoring will suffice? This Pro-Con debate will contrast anesthesia provider perceptions with evidence surrounding the use of quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitors to explore whether quantitative neuromuscular monitoring (NMM) is just another technology solution looking for a problem or a significant advance in NMM that will improve patient safety and outcomes.

Effect of Neuromuscular Blockade on Intraoperative Respiratory Mechanics and Surgical Space Conditions during Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this study was to investigate whether deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) may affect intraoperative respiratory mechanics, surgical condition, and recovery profiles in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients were randomly assigned to the moderate or deep NMB groups. Pneumoperitoneum was maintained with carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation at 15 mmHg during surgery. The primary outcome was peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) after CO₂ insufflation. Mean airway pressure (P_mean) and dynamic lung compliance (C_dyn) were also recorded. The surgeon rated the surgical condition and surgical difficulty on a five-point scale (1 = extremely poor; 2 = poor; 3 = acceptable; 4 = good; 5 = optimal). Recovery profiles, such as pulmonary complications, pain scores, and recovery time, were recorded. We included 58 patients in this study. No significant differences were observed regarding intraoperative respiratory mechanics including PIP, P_mean and C_dyn, between the two groups. The number of patients with optimal surgical conditions was significantly higher in the deep than in the moderate NMB group (29 vs. 20, p = 0.014). We found no differences in recovery profiles. In conclusion, deep NMB had no significant effect on the intraoperative respiratory mechanics but resulted in optimal endoscopic surgical conditions during RARP compared with moderate NMB.

Deep neuromuscular block does not improve surgical conditions in patients receiving sevoflurane anaesthesia for laparoscopic renal surgery

Background

Deep neuromuscular block is associated with improved working conditions during laparoscopic surgery when propofol is used as a general anaesthetic. However, whether deep neuromuscular block yields similar beneficial effects when anaesthesia is maintained using volatile inhalation anaesthesia has not been systematically investigated. Volatile anaesthetics, as opposed to intravenous agents, potentiate muscle relaxation, which potentially reduces the need for deep neuromuscular block to obtain optimal surgical conditions. We examined whether deep neuromuscular block improves surgical conditions over moderate neuromuscular block during sevoflurane anaesthesia.

Methods

In this single-centre, prospective, randomised, double-blind study, 98 patients scheduled for elective renal surgery were randomised to receive deep (post-tetanic count 1–2 twitches) or a moderate neuromuscular block (train-of-four 1–2 twitches). Anaesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and titrated to bispectral index values between 40 and 50. Pneumoperitoneum pressure was maintained at 12 mm Hg. The primary outcome was the difference in surgical conditions, scored at 15 min intervals by one of eight blinded surgeons using a 5-point Leiden-Surgical Rating Scale (L-SRS) that scores the quality of the surgical field from extremely poor¹ to optimal⁵.

Results

Deep neuromuscular block did not improve surgical conditions compared with moderate neuromuscular block: mean (standard deviation) L-SRS 4.8 (0.3) vs 4.8 (0.4), respectively (P=0.94). Secondary outcomes, including unplanned postoperative readmissions and prolonged hospital admission, were not significantly different.

Conclusions

During sevoflurane anaesthesia, deep neuromuscular block did not improve surgical conditions over moderate neuromuscular block in normal-pressure laparoscopic renal surgery.

Clinical trial registration

NL7844 (www.trialregister.nl).