K Kirov1, C Motamed, G Dhonneur. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Henri Mondor University Hospital, Paris XII School of Medicine, Créteil, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory muscles are considered to be more resistant to muscle relaxants as compared with peripheral muscles. However, the relative sensitivity of respiratory muscles participating to the pump function has not been compared. We used electromyography to compare pharmacodynamic parameters of the diaphragm and abdominal muscles after mivacurium. METHODS:Forty adults undergoing elective surgery were randomly allocated in five dosing groups of mivacurium (50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 microg/kg). Patients anesthetized withpropofol and fentanyl underwent intubation without relaxants. Anesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide and propofol. The right phrenic nerve, the left 10th intercostal nerve, and the ulnar nerve were stimulated. Electromyography of the diaphragm and abdominal muscles was recorded from surface electrodes. Mechanomyography was used to measure adductor pollicis evoked contraction. After a 5-min stable recording period, patients received a single intravenous bolus (20 s) dose of mivacurium. By using log dose-probit effect regression analysis, dose-response curves were constructed. Effective doses and 95% confidence intervals were derived for the diaphragm and abdominal muscles and were compared. RESULTS: The dose-response regression line of abdominal muscles differed from that of the diaphragm. Calculated ED50 and ED90 were higher for the diaphragm than for the abdominal muscles (104 [82-127] and 196 [177-213] microg/kg, and 67 [51-82] and 161 [143-181] microg/kg, respectively). The onset of block was faster and recovery of control responses were shorter at the diaphragm than at the abdominal muscles. CONCLUSION: Diaphragm and abdominal muscles have differential sensitivity to mivacurium. The diaphragm is more resistant to mivacurium than abdominal muscles are.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Respiratory muscles are considered to be more resistant to muscle relaxants as compared with peripheral muscles. However, the relative sensitivity of respiratory muscles participating to the pump function has not been compared. We used electromyography to compare pharmacodynamic parameters of the diaphragm and abdominal muscles after mivacurium. METHODS: Forty adults undergoing elective surgery were randomly allocated in five dosing groups of mivacurium (50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 microg/kg). Patients anesthetized with propofol and fentanyl underwent intubation without relaxants. Anesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide and propofol. The right phrenic nerve, the left 10th intercostal nerve, and the ulnar nerve were stimulated. Electromyography of the diaphragm and abdominal muscles was recorded from surface electrodes. Mechanomyography was used to measure adductor pollicis evoked contraction. After a 5-min stable recording period, patients received a single intravenous bolus (20 s) dose of mivacurium. By using log dose-probit effect regression analysis, dose-response curves were constructed. Effective doses and 95% confidence intervals were derived for the diaphragm and abdominal muscles and were compared. RESULTS: The dose-response regression line of abdominal muscles differed from that of the diaphragm. Calculated ED50 and ED90 were higher for the diaphragm than for the abdominal muscles (104 [82-127] and 196 [177-213] microg/kg, and 67 [51-82] and 161 [143-181] microg/kg, respectively). The onset of block was faster and recovery of control responses were shorter at the diaphragm than at the abdominal muscles. CONCLUSION: Diaphragm and abdominal muscles have differential sensitivity to mivacurium. The diaphragm is more resistant to mivacurium than abdominal muscles are.
Authors: Sami Hraiech; Jean-Marie Forel; Christophe Guervilly; Romain Rambaud; Samuel Lehingue; Mélanie Adda; Pierre Sylla; Sabine Valera; Julien Carvelli; Marc Gainnier; Laurent Papazian; Jérémy Bourenne Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 6.925