Key result
A prototype electromyograph closely resembled mechanomyography for assessing neuromuscular blockade (mean difference 4.7), whereas acceleromyography frequently produced train-of-four ratios >1.0.
Why the study?
Mechanomyography is the laboratory gold standard for neuromuscular blockade monitoring but is not commercially available, whereas acceleromyography is commonly used clinically and electromyography is not widely available.
Does a prototype electromyograph compare favorably with mechanomyography and acceleromyography for assessing neuromuscular blockade in anesthetised patients?
Population
43 anesthetised patients
Comparison
Prototype electromyograph vs newly constructed mechanomyograph vs commercially available acceleromyograph monitor
Authors
Loading...
Prototype EMG merits validation trials; leaves open clinical outcome benefits versus acceleromyography.
Observational (n=43)
Does a prototype electromyograph compare favorably with mechanomyography and acceleromyography for assessing neuromuscular blockade in anesthetised patients?
Mean Difference: 4.7
Electromyography closely resembles the gold standard mechanomyography for assessing neuromuscular blockade, whereas acceleromyography frequently produces values >1.0, complicating clinical interpretation.
Bowdle et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Neuromuscular blockade during anaesthesia (n=43). Prototype electromyograph vs. Mechanomyograph and acceleromyograph was evaluated on Mean difference in train-of-four ratios (mechanomyography vs. electromyography) (MD 4.7, 95% CI -25.2 to 34.6). A prototype electromyograph closely resembled mechanomyography for assessing neuromuscular blockade (mean difference 4.7), whereas acceleromyography frequently produced train-of-four ratios >1.0.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: