Key result
TOF-Cuff demonstrated high accuracy and precision compared to TOF-Watch, though precision decreased at train-of-four ratios >0.7 and it underestimated ratios in the recovery period.
Why the study?
To assess agreement between the TOF-Cuff and TOF-Watch and evaluate the clinical utility of TOF-Cuff by assessing residual paresis.
Does TOF-Cuff provide comparable train-of-four ratio measurements to TOF-Watch?
Observational
Does TOF-Cuff provide comparable train-of-four ratio measurements to TOF-Watch?
While TOF-Cuff shows general agreement with TOF-Watch, its underestimation of train-of-four ratios during recovery necessitates further outcome-based research.
TOF-Cuff may serve as an alternative neuromuscular monitor; leaves open validation needs at higher recovery ratios in larger studies.
Train-of-four ratios were recorded to assess the agreement between the TOF-Cuff and TOF-Watch, and residual paresis was assessed to evaluate the clinical utility of TOF-Cuff. Train-of-four ratios were evaluated using Lin concordance correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analyses. Measured train-of-four ratios demonstrated high accuracy and precision over the entire range of train-of-four ratios. Although precision and Lin concordance correlation coefficients decreased with train-of-four ratios >0.7, none of the patients showed signs of residual paresis. Because TOF-Cuff underestimated train-of-four ratios in the recovery period, the clinical safety of train-of-four ratios >0.9 indicated by TOF-Cuff is unclear; the issue of residual paresis requires future research that rigorously evaluates outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kazuma et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Neuromuscular blockade. TOF-Cuff vs. TOF-Watch was evaluated on Agreement of train-of-four ratios. TOF-Cuff demonstrated high accuracy and precision compared to TOF-Watch, though precision decreased at train-of-four ratios >0.7 and it underestimated ratios in the recovery period.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: