Peri-operative diaphragm ultrasound as a new method of recognizing post-operative residual curarization.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 100968535 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1471-2253 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14712253 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Anesthesiol Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: [London] : BioMed Central, 2001-

Delayed Emergence from Anesthesia/*diagnostic imaging ; Diaphragm/*diagnostic imaging ; Ultrasonography/*methods; Adult ; Anesthesia, General/methods ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neuromuscular Monitoring/methods ; Prospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Young Adult

Background: This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of peri-operative diaphragm ultrasound in assessing post-operative residual curarization (PORC).
Methods: Patients undergoing non-thoracic and non-abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia were enrolled from July 2019 to October 2019 at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. A train-of-four ratio (TOFr) lower than 0.9 was considered as the gold standard for PORC. Diaphragm ultrasound parameters included diaphragmatic excursion (DE) and diaphragm thickening fraction (DTF) during quiet breathing (QB) and deep breathing (DB). The diaphragm excursion fraction (DEF) was calculated as the DE-QB divided by the DE-DB. The diaphragm excursion difference (DED) was defined as DE-DB minus DE-QB. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the cut-off values of ultrasound parameters for the prediction of PORC.
Results: In total, 75 patients were included, with a PORC incidence of 54.6%. The DE-DB and DED were positively correlated with the TOFr, while the DEF was negatively correlated with the TOFr. The DE-DB cut-off value for predicting PORC was 3.88 cm, with a sensitivity of 85.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70.1-93.9%), specificity of 64.7% (95% CI: 46.4-79.7%), positive likelihood ratio of 2.42 (95% CI 1.5-3.9), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.23 (95% CI: 0.1-0.5). The DED cut-off value was 1.5 cm, with a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI: 80.3-99.3%), sensitivity of 63.4% (95% CI: 46.9-77.9%), positive likelihood ratio of 10.78 (95% CI: 2.8-42.2), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.39 (95% CI: 0.3-0.6).
Conclusions: Peri-operative diaphragm ultrasound may be an additional method aiding the recognition of PORC, with DED having high specificity.
(© 2021. The Author(s).)

Erratum in: BMC Anesthesiol. 2022 Jan 14;22(1):25. (PMID: 35031010)

Baillard C. Incidence and complications of post operative residual paralysis. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2009;28(Suppl 2):S41–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0750-7658(09)72486-4 . (PMID: 10.1016/s0750-7658(09)72486-41988727619887276)
Brull SJ, Kopman AF. Current status of neuromuscular reversal and monitoring: challenges and opportunities. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(1):173–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000001409 . (PMID: 10.1097/aln.00000000000014092782070927820709)
Saager L, Maiese EM, Bash LD, Meyer TA, Minkowitz H, Groudine S, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and consequences of residual neuromuscular block in the United States: the prospective, observational, multicenter RECITE-US study. J Clin Anesth. 2019;55:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.12.042 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.12.0423059409730594097)
Grabitz SD, Rajaratnam N, Chhagani K, Thevathasan T, Teja BJ, Deng H, et al. The effects of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade on hospital costs and intensive care unit admission: a population-based cohort study. Anesth Analg. 2019;128(6):1129–36. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000004028 . (PMID: 10.1213/ane.00000000000040283109477731094777)
Naguib M, Brull SJ, Kopman AF, Hunter JM, Fülesdi B, Arkes HR, et al. Consensus Statement on Perioperative Use of Neuromuscular Monitoring. Anesth Analg. 2018;127(1):71–80. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000002670 . (PMID: 10.1213/ane.00000000000026702920007729200077)
Murphy GS. Neuromuscular monitoring in the perioperative period. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(2):464–8. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002387 . (PMID: 10.1213/ANE.00000000000023872879596428795964)
Yu B, Ouyang B, Ge S, Luo Y, Li J, Ni D, et al. Incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade after general anesthesia: a prospective, multicenter, anesthetist-blind, observational study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2015.1103213 . (PMID: 10.1185/03007995.2015.11032132645256126452561)
Bruells CS, Marx G. Diaphragm dysfunction : facts for clinicians. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2018;113(7):526–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-016-0226-0 . (PMID: 10.1007/s00063-016-0226-02776637727766377)
Dionisio MT, Rebelo A, Pinto C, Carvalho L, Neves JF. Ultrasound assessment of ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction in Paediatrics. Acta Medica Port. 2019;32(7–8):520–8. https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.10830 . (PMID: 10.20344/amp.10830)
Connolly AM, Mittendorfer B. Tracking diaphragm movement by using ultrasound to assess its strength. J Physiol. 2016;594(24):7147–8. https://doi.org/10.1113/jp273313 . (PMID: 10.1113/jp2733132797640027976400)
Umbrello M, Formenti P. Ultrasonographic assessment of diaphragm function in critically ill subjects. Respir Care. 2016;61(4):542–55. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.04412 . (PMID: 10.4187/respcare.044122681421826814218)
Goligher EC, Laghi F, Detsky ME, Farias P, Murray A, Brace D, et al. Measuring diaphragm thickness with ultrasound in mechanically ventilated patients: feasibility, reproducibility and validity. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(4):642–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3687-3 . (PMID: 10.1007/s00134-015-3687-32569344825693448)
Cardenas LZ, Santana PV, Caruso P, Ribeiro de Carvalho CR, Pereira de Albuquerque AL. Diaphragmatic ultrasound correlates with inspiratory muscle strength and pulmonary function in healthy subjects. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44(4):786–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.11.020 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.11.0202937315329373153)
Carrillo-Esper R, Perez-Calatayud AA, Arch-Tirado E, Diaz-Carrillo MA, Garrido-Aguirre E, Tapia-Velazco R, et al. Standardization of Sonographic diaphragm thickness evaluations in healthy volunteers. Respir Care. 2016;61(7):920–4. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.03999 . (PMID: 10.4187/respcare.039992707201227072012)
Holtzhausen S, Unger M, Lupton-Smith A, Hanekom S. An investigation into the use of ultrasound as a surrogate measure of diaphragm function. Heart Lung. 2018;47(4):418–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.04.010 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.04.0102977970529779705)
Minami T, Manzoor K, McCool FD. Assessing diaphragm function in Chest Wall and neuromuscular diseases. Clin Chest Med. 2018;39(2):335–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccm.2018.01.013 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ccm.2018.01.0132977959329779593)
Ueki J, De Bruin PF, Pride NB. In vivo assessment of diaphragm contraction by ultrasound in normal subjects. Thorax. 1995;50(11):1157–61. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.50.11.1157 . (PMID: 10.1136/thx.50.11.115785532718553271)
Llamas-Alvarez AM, Tenza-Lozano EM, Latour-Perez J. Diaphragm and lung ultrasound to predict weaning outcome: systematic review and Meta-analysis. Chest. 2017;152(6):1140–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2017.08.028 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.08.0282886405328864053)
Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012799. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799 . (PMID: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-01279951289575128957)
White PF, Song D. New criteria for fast-tracking after outpatient anesthesia: a comparison with the modified Aldrete's scoring system. Anesth Analg. 1999;88(5):1069–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-199905000-00018 . (PMID: 10.1097/00000539-199905000-000181032017010320170)
Fuchs-Buder T, Claudius C, Skovgaard LT, Eriksson LI, Mirakhur RK, Viby-Mogensen J, et al. Good clinical research practice in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents II: the Stockholm revision. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007;51(7):789–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2007.01352.x . (PMID: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2007.01352.x1763538917635389)
Cappellini I, Picciafuochi F, Bartolucci M, Matteini S, Virgili G, Adembri C. Evaluation of diaphragm thickening by diaphragm ultrasonography: a reproducibility and a repeatability study. J Ultrasound. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-020-00462-x .
Grams ST, von Saltiél R, Mayer AF, Schivinski CI, de S Nobre LF, Nóbrega IS, et al. Assessment of the reproducibility of the indirect ultrasound method of measuring diaphragm mobility. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2014;34(1):18–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12058 . (PMID: 10.1111/cpf.120582373080523730805)
Boussuges A, Gole Y, Blanc P. Diaphragmatic motion studied by m-mode ultrasonography: methods, reproducibility, and normal values. Chest. 2009;135(2):391–400. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.08-1541 . (PMID: 10.1378/chest.08-15411901788019017880)
Smargiassi A, Inchingolo R, Tagliaboschi L, Di Marco BA, Valente S, Corbo GM. Ultrasonographic assessment of the diaphragm in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: relationships with pulmonary function and the influence of body composition - a pilot study. Respiration. 2014;87(5):364–71. https://doi.org/10.1159/000358564 . (PMID: 10.1159/0003585642473229524732295)
Barbariol F, Deana C, Guadagnin GM, Cammarota G, Vetrugno L, Bassi F. Ultrasound diaphragmatic excursion during non-invasive ventilation in ICU: a prospective observational study. Acta Biomed. 2021;92(3):e2021269. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v92i3.11609 . (PMID: 10.23750/abm.v92i3.116093421290034212900)
Cammarota G, Sguazzotti I, Zanoni M, Messina A, Colombo D, Vignazia GL, et al. Diaphragmatic Ultrasound Assessment in Subjects With Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure Admitted to the Emergency Department. Respir Care. 2019;64(12):1469–77. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.06803 . (PMID: 10.4187/respcare.068033145568431455684)
Cappellini I, Picciafuochi F, Ostento D, Danti G, De Gaudio AR, Adembri C. Recovery of muscle function after deep neuromuscular block by means of diaphragm ultrasonography and adductor of pollicis acceleromyography with comparison of neostigmine vs. sugammadex as reversal drugs: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19(1):135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2525-7 . (PMID: 10.1186/s13063-018-2525-72946702229467022)
Hemmerling TM, Donati F. Neuromuscular blockade at the larynx, the diaphragm and the corrugator supercilii muscle: a review. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50(8):779–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03019373 . (PMID: 10.1007/bf030193731452581614525816)
Rocco M, Maggi L, Ranieri G, Ferrari G, Gregoretti C, Conti G, et al. Propofol sedation reduces diaphragm activity in spontaneously breathing patients: ultrasound assessment. Minerva Anestesiol. 2017;83(3):266–73. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0375-9393.17.11615-9 . (PMID: 10.23736/s0375-9393.17.11615-92817720628177206)
Garofalo E, Bruni A, Pelaia C, Landoni G, Zangrillo A, Antonelli M, et al. Comparisons of two diaphragm ultrasound-teaching programs: a multicenter randomized controlled educational study. Ultrasound J. 2019;11(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-019-0137-4 . (PMID: 10.1186/s13089-019-0137-43157870031578700)
Calvo-Lobo C, Almazán-Polo J, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Losa-Iglesias ME, Palomo-López P, Rodríguez-Sanz D, et al. Ultrasonography comparison of diaphragm thickness and excursion between athletes with and without lumbopelvic pain. Phys Ther Sport. 2019;37:128–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.03.015 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.03.0153095470530954705)
Dülger E, Bilgin S, Bulut E, İnal İnce D, Köse N, Türkmen C, et al. The effect of stabilization exercises on diaphragm muscle thickness and movement in women with low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2018;31(2):323–9. https://doi.org/10.3233/bmr-169749 . (PMID: 10.3233/bmr-1697492927887029278870)
Unterbuchner C, Blobner M. Deep neuromuscular blockade : benefits and risks. Anaesthesist. 2018;67(3):165–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-018-0425-6 . (PMID: 10.1007/s00101-018-0425-62949776329497763)

Keywords: Diagnostic test; Diaphragm ultrasound; Neuromuscular monitor; Post-operative residual Curarization; Train-of-four

Date Created: 20211119 Date Completed: 20220302 Latest Revision: 20220302

20221213

PMC8603586

10.1186/s12871-021-01506-3

34794389