0
Clinical Investigations in Critical Care |

A Prospective Randomized Comparison of Train-of-Four Monitoring and Clinical Assessment During Continuous ICU Cisatracurium Paralysis*

Michael H. Baumann, MD, FCCP; B. Wayne McAlpin, MD; Keith Brown, RN; Praful Patel, MD; Imtiaz Ahmad, MD; Robert Stewart, MD; Marcy Petrini, PhD, FCCP
Author and Funding Information

*From the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS.

Correspondence to: Michael H. Baumann, MD, FCCP, 2500 North State St, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 39216-4505; e-mail: mbaumann@medicine.umsmed.edu



Chest. 2004;126(4):1267-1273. doi:10.1378/chest.126.4.1267
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Study purpose: Train-of-four (TOF) monitoring is often recommended during the continuous use of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) [paralysis] in the ICU. Prior study results are conflicting regarding the benefits of TOF monitoring.

Design: Thirty patients in the medical ICU were randomized to TOF monitoring (n = 16) or to clinical assessment (n = 14) during continuous cisatracurium infusion. TOF monitoring was done at least every 4 h, with the goal being maintenance of one to two twitches. Statistical analysis was performed by two-tailed, unpaired t test (with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons), χ2, and Fisher exact test, with p < 0.05 considered significant. Given a power of 80%, and the variance seen in the two groups, we estimate that the sample size used is sufficient to detect a change of ≥ 60 min between groups for recovery time.

Results: The mean recovery time after cessation of paralytics was no different between TOF and clinical assessment (45 ± 7 min vs 38 ± 10 min, respectively [mean ± SEM]). No differences were noted for mean APACHE (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation) II entry scores, glomerular filtration rates, or use of corticosteroids. No significant differences were noted between TOF monitoring and clinical assessment in mean total paralysis time (4,118 ± 1,012 min vs 3,188 ± 705 min, respectively), mean total cisatracurium dose (920 ± 325 mg vs 715 ± 167 mg), or dosage (2.3 ± 0.2 μg/kg/min vs 2.9 ± 0.2 μg/kg/min).

Conclusions: TOF monitoring does not lead to improved recovery time or lower cisatracurium dosing compared with monitoring by clinical assessment. We conclude that TOF monitoring is unnecessary, and careful titration of the neuromuscular blocking agent by clinical assessment alone is sufficient in patients undergoing continuous cisatracurium NMB.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543