Neuromuscular Blocking Drugs and Postoperative Pulmonary Complications

Neuromuscular Blockade (GS Murphy, Section Editor)
  • 6 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Neuromuscular Blockade

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief review of the literature around the relationship between the use of neuromuscular blocking drugs and subsequent postoperative pulmonary complications.

Recent Findings

A recent series of retrospective studies evaluating the use of neuromuscular blocking agents and postoperative complications have demonstrated growing evidence for a clear relationship between the use of the agents and downstream complications. The frequency of postoperative respiratory problems seems to be mitigated to some degree through the appropriate use of reversal agents.

Summary

Care should be exercised when administering neuromuscular blocking agents during surgical procedures. Appropriate monitoring of neuromuscular transmission should be used along with a strategy to provide adequate reversal at the end of the surgical procedure.

Keywords

Neuromuscular blocker Postoperative complications Pulmonary Anesthesiology Anesthesia reversal Postoperative pneumonia 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Letha Mathews and Jesse M. Ehrenfeld declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD, Haynes AB, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, et al. An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet. 2008;372(9633):139–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60878-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Leary ME, Filatov GN, White MM. Characterization of d-tubocurarine binding site of Torpedo acetylcholine receptor. Am J Phys. 1994;266(3 Pt 1):C648–53.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.1994.266.3.C648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McIntyre AR, King RE. Contraction of denervated muscle produced by d-tubocurarine. Science. 1943;97(2527):516.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.97.2527.516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daly HJ, Marshall SV. Curare in anaesthesia; a preliminary note. Med J Aust. 1946;2:14–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bourne JG. Long action of suxamethonium (succinylcholine) chloride. Br J Anaesth. 1953;25(2):116–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hund HC, Rice MJ, Ehrenfeld J. An evaluation of the state of neuromuscular blockade monitoring devices. J Med Syst. 2016;40(12):281.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-016-0641-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ali HH, Savarese JJ. Stimulus frequency and dose-respone curve to d-tubocurarine in man. Anesthesiology. 1980;52(1):36–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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(5):1042–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naguib M, Kopman AF, Ensor JE. Neuromuscular monitoring and postoperative residual curarisation: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98(3):302–16.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/ael386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stawicki N, Gessner P. Residual neuromuscular blockade in the critical care setting. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2018;29(1):15–24.  https://doi.org/10.4037/aacnacc2018384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Belcher AW, Leung S, Cohen B, Yang D, Mascha EJ, Turan A, et al. Incidence of complications in the post-anesthesia care unit and associated healthcare utilization in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery requiring neuromuscular blockade 2005–2013: a single center study. J Clin Anesth. 2017;43:33–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.09.005. Published in 2013, a large study of 128,886 patients who had received a neuromuscular blocking agent between April 2005 and December 2013. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    • Bronsert MR, Henderson WG, Monk TG, Richman JS, Nguyen JD, Sum-Ping JT, et al. Intermediate-acting nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents and risk of postoperative 30-day morbidity and mortality, and long-term survival. Anesth Analg. 2017;124(5):1476–83.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001848. Published in 2017, a study of respiratory complications after neuromuscular blockade in 11,355 Veteran Affair Health System patients. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    •• Bulka CM, Terekhov MA, Martin BJ, Dmochowski RR, Hayes RM, Ehrenfeld JM. Nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents, reversal, and risk of postoperative pneumonia. Anesthesiology. 2016;125(4):647–55.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000001279. Published in 2016, this study of 13,100 surgical cases compared surgical patients who received reversal with neostigmine to patients who did not and found that nonreversal was associated with an increased risk of postoperative pneumonia. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    • Martinez-Ubieto J, Ortega-Lucea S, Pascual-Bellosta A, Arazo-Iglesias I, Gil-Bona J, Jimenez-Bernardo T, et al. Prospective study of residual neuromuscular block and postoperative respiratory complications in patients reversed with neostigmine versus sugammadex. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82(7):735–42. Published in 2016, this prospective study of 558 patients evaluated residual neuromuscular block and postoperative respiratory complications in patients reversed with neostigmine versus sugammadex. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ledowski T, Falke L, Johnston F, Gillies E, Greenaway M, De Mel A, et al. Retrospective investigation of postoperative outcome after reversal of residual neuromuscular blockade: sugammadex, neostigmine or no reversal. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014;31(8):423–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Todd MM, Hindman BJ, King BJ. The implementation of quantitative electromyographic neuromuscular monitoring in an academic anesthesia department. Anesth Analg. 2014;119(2):323–31.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thomsen JLD, Mathiesen O, Hagi-Pedersen D, Skovgaard LT, Ostergaard D, Engbaek J, et al. Improving neuromuscular monitoring and reducing residual neuromuscular blockade with E-learning: protocol for the multicenter interrupted time series INVERT study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017;6(10):e192.  https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.7527.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of NeuroanesthesiologyVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Vanderbilt Anesthesiology & Perioperative Informatics Research DivisionVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations