Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 5/2019

01-10-2019 | Original Research

Development and validation of an android-based application for anaesthesia neuromuscular monitoring

Authors: Hugo Carvalho, Michael Verdonck, Johan Berghmans, Jan Poelaert

Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing | Issue 5/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Quantitative neuromuscular block (NMB) assessment is an internationally recognised necessity in anesthesia care whenever neuromuscular blocking agents are administered. Despite this, the incidence of residual neuromuscular block and its associated major respiratory morbidity and mortality remain unacceptably high considering its preventable nature. Recent surveys show that quantitative NMB assessment is not consistently employed by anesthesiologists. Availability, price and practical concerns are some of the factors determining this phenomenon. Clinically assess and validate an Android cell phone application conceived specifically for NMB Monitoring in the anesthesia setting. Twenty-two adult ASA I to III patients scheduled to undergo elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia requiring administration of a neuromuscular blocking agent were included. After anaesthesia induction, the grade of neuromuscular block was assessed at multiple independent time-points by paired comparison of the train of four (TOF) Ratios obtained by a Stimpod™ accelerometer and the currently developed application. Accelerometric measurements were made at the patient’s hand after retrograde supramaximal stimulation of the ipsilateral ulnar nerve. TOF-ratios were subjected to bias analysis with 0.001 as the a priori established clinical significance cut-off. The difference between the two methods averaged 0.0004 (95% limits of agreement: ± 0.12), with 83.3% of the differences being under 0.05. This average inter-method difference was not significantly different than the a priori hypothesized difference cut-off of 0.001 (p = 0.78). Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient and Pearson’s correlation were both of 0.98. The custom developed Android application proved accurate for diagnosis of residual neuromuscular block.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Cameron KS, Fletcher L, Clark JK, Zhang MQ, Orbons LPM. (2001) Chemical chelation as a novel method of NMB reversal characterization of the Org 25969 NMB complex. Eur J Anesthesiol 15:18–99. Cameron KS, Fletcher L, Clark JK, Zhang MQ, Orbons LPM. (2001) Chemical chelation as a novel method of NMB reversal characterization of the Org 25969 NMB complex. Eur J Anesthesiol 15:18–99.
3.
go back to reference Murphy GS, Brull SJ. Residual neuromuscular block: lessons learned. Part 1: definitions, incidence, and adverse physiologic effects of residual neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:120–8.CrossRefPubMed Murphy GS, Brull SJ. Residual neuromuscular block: lessons learned. Part 1: definitions, incidence, and adverse physiologic effects of residual neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:120–8.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Thilen SR, Bhananker SM. Qualitative neuromuscular monitoring: how to optimize the use of a peripheral nerve stimulator to reduce the risk of residual neuromuscular blockade. Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2016;6:164–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Thilen SR, Bhananker SM. Qualitative neuromuscular monitoring: how to optimize the use of a peripheral nerve stimulator to reduce the risk of residual neuromuscular blockade. Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2016;6:164–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Brull SJ, Kopman AF. Current status of neuromuscular reversal and monitoring: challenges and opportunities. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(1):173–90.CrossRefPubMed Brull SJ, Kopman AF. Current status of neuromuscular reversal and monitoring: challenges and opportunities. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(1):173–90.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Naguib M, et al. A survey of current management of neuromuscular block in the United States and Europe. Anesth Analg. 2010;111(1):110–9.CrossRefPubMed Naguib M, et al. A survey of current management of neuromuscular block in the United States and Europe. Anesth Analg. 2010;111(1):110–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Naguib M, et al. Consensus statement on perioperative use of neuromuscular monitoring. Anesth Analg. 2017;127(1):71–80. Naguib M, et al. Consensus statement on perioperative use of neuromuscular monitoring. Anesth Analg. 2017;127(1):71–80.
8.
go back to reference Murphy GS, et al. To reverse or not to reverse? The answer is clear! Surv Anesthesiol. 2017;61(1):24.CrossRef Murphy GS, et al. To reverse or not to reverse? The answer is clear! Surv Anesthesiol. 2017;61(1):24.CrossRef
10.
11.
go back to reference Naguib M, Kopman AF, Ensor JE. Neuromuscular monitoring and postoperative residual curarisation: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98(3):302–16.CrossRefPubMed Naguib M, Kopman AF, Ensor JE. Neuromuscular monitoring and postoperative residual curarisation: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98(3):302–16.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–10.CrossRef Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–10.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lu MJ, Zhong WH, Liu YX, Miao HZ, Li YC, Ji MH. Sample size for assessing agreement between two methods of measurement by Bland-Altman method. Int J Biostat. 2016;1(2):12. Lu MJ, Zhong WH, Liu YX, Miao HZ, Li YC, Ji MH. Sample size for assessing agreement between two methods of measurement by Bland-Altman method. Int J Biostat. 2016;1(2):12.
14.
go back to reference Watson PF, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. 2010;73(9):1167–79.CrossRefPubMed Watson PF, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. 2010;73(9):1167–79.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Bhananker, et al. Comparison of train-of-four count by anesthesia providers versus TOF-Watch® SX: a prospective cohort study. Can J Anaesth. 2015;62(10):1089–96.CrossRefPubMed Bhananker, et al. Comparison of train-of-four count by anesthesia providers versus TOF-Watch® SX: a prospective cohort study. Can J Anaesth. 2015;62(10):1089–96.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Debaene B, Plaud B, Dilly MP, Donati F. Residual paralysis in the PACU after a single intubating dose of nondepolarizing muscle relaxant with an intermediate duration of action. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:1042–8.CrossRefPubMed Debaene B, Plaud B, Dilly MP, Donati F. Residual paralysis in the PACU after a single intubating dose of nondepolarizing muscle relaxant with an intermediate duration of action. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:1042–8.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Brull SJ, Silverman DG. Real time versus slow-motion train-of-four monitoring: a theory to explain in inaccuracy of visual assessment. Anesth Analg. 1995;80:548–51.PubMed Brull SJ, Silverman DG. Real time versus slow-motion train-of-four monitoring: a theory to explain in inaccuracy of visual assessment. Anesth Analg. 1995;80:548–51.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Colegrave N, et al. Comparison of the TOF-Scan™ acceleromyograph to TOF-Watch SX™: influence of calibration. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016;35(3):223–7.CrossRefPubMed Colegrave N, et al. Comparison of the TOF-Scan™ acceleromyograph to TOF-Watch SX™: influence of calibration. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016;35(3):223–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Kang L, et al. iPhone accelerometry for monitoring quantitative neuromuscular function. Anaesthesia. 2016;71(2):235–6.CrossRefPubMed Kang L, et al. iPhone accelerometry for monitoring quantitative neuromuscular function. Anaesthesia. 2016;71(2):235–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Development and validation of an android-based application for anaesthesia neuromuscular monitoring
Authors
Hugo Carvalho
Michael Verdonck
Johan Berghmans
Jan Poelaert
Publication date
01-10-2019
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 1387-1307
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2614
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0224-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 5/2019 Go to the issue