Benoît Plaud1, Christophe Baillard2, Jean-Louis Bourgain3, Gaëlle Bouroche4, Laetitia Desplanque5, Jean-Michel Devys6, Dominique Fletcher7, Thomas Fuchs-Buder8, Gilles Lebuffe9, Claude Meistelman8, Cyrus Motamed3, Julien Raft10, Frédérique Servin5, Didier Sirieix11, Karem Slim12, Lionel Velly13, Franck Verdonk14, Bertrand Debaene15. 1. Université de Paris, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, service d'anesthésie et de réanimation, hôpital Saint-Louis, 1, avenue Claude-Vellefaux, 75010 Paris, France. Electronic address: benoit.plaud@aphp.fr. 2. Université de Paris, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, service d'anesthésie et de réanimation, hôpital Cochin-Port Royal, 27, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Jacques, 75014 Paris, France. 3. Institut Gustave-Roussy, service d'anesthésie, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. 4. Centre Léon-Bérard, service d'anesthésie, 28, promenade Léa-et-Napoléon-Bullukian, 69008 Lyon, France. 5. Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, service d'anesthésie et de réanimation, hôpital Bichat-Claude-Bernard, 46, rue Henri-Huchard, 75877 Paris cedex, France. 6. Fondation ophtalmologique Adolphe-de-Rothschild, service d'anesthésie et de réanimation, 29, rue Manin, 75019 Paris, France. 7. Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, hôpital Ambroise-Paré, service d'anesthésie, 9, avenue Charles-de-Gaulle, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France. 8. Université de Lorraine, CHU de Brabois, service d'anesthésie et de réanimation, rue du Morvan, 54511 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France. 9. Université de Lille, hôpital Huriez, service d'anesthésie et de réanimation, rue Michel-Polonovski, 59037 Lille, France. 10. Institut de cancérologie de Lorraine, service d'anesthésie, 6, avenue de Bourgogne, 54519 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France. 11. Groupe polyclinique Marzet-Navarre, service d'anesthésie, 40, boulevard d'Alsace-Lorraine, 64000 Pau, France. 12. Université d'Auvergne, service de chirurgie digestive et hépatobiliaire, hôpital d'Estaing, 1, rue Lucie-Aubrac, 63100 Clermont-Ferrand, France. 13. Université Aix-Marseille, hôpital de la Timone adultes, service d'anesthésie et de réanimation, 264, rue Saint-Pierre, 13385 Marseille cedex 05, France. 14. Sorbonne université, hôpital Saint-Antoine, 84, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Antoine, 75012 Paris, France. 15. Université de Poitiers, service d'anesthésie et de réanimation, CHU de Poitiers, BP 577, 86021 Poitiers cedex, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide an update to the 1999 French guidelines on "Muscle relaxants and reversal in anaesthesia", a consensus committee of sixteen experts was convened. A formal policy of declaration and monitoring of conflicts of interest (COI) was developed at the outset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e. pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were required to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence were stressed. Few of the recommendations remained ungraded. METHODS: The panel focused on eight questions: (1) In the absence of difficult mask ventilation criteria, is it necessary to check the possibility of ventilation via a facemask before muscle relaxant injection? Is it necessary to use muscle relaxants to facilitate facemask ventilation? (2) Is the use of muscle relaxants necessary to facilitate tracheal intubation? (3) Is the use of muscle relaxants necessary to facilitate the insertion of a supraglottic device and management of related complications? (4) Is it necessary to monitor neuromuscular blockade for airway management? (5) Is the use of muscle relaxants necessary to facilitate interventional procedures, and if so, which procedures? (6) Is intraoperative monitoring of neuromuscular blockade necessary? (7) What are the strategies for preventing and treating residual neuromuscular blockade? (8) What are the indications and precautions for use of both muscle relaxants and reversal agents in special populations (e.g. electroconvulsive therapy, obese patients, children, neuromuscular diseases, renal/hepatic failure, elderly patients)? All questions were formulated using the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) model for clinical questions and evidence profiles were generated. The results of the literature analysis and the recommendations were then assessed using the GRADE® system. RESULTS: The summaries prepared by the SFAR Guideline panel resulted in thirty-one recommendations on muscle relaxants and reversal agents in anaesthesia. Of these recommendations, eleven have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) while twenty have a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). No recommendations could be provided using the GRADE® system for five of the questions, and for two of these questions expert opinions were given. After two rounds of discussion and an amendment, a strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations. CONCLUSION: Substantial agreement exists among experts regarding many strong recommendations for the improvement of practice concerning the use of muscle relaxants and reversal agents during anaesthesia. In particular, the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR) recommends the use of a device to monitor neuromuscular blockade throughout anaesthesia.
OBJECTIVES: To provide an update to the 1999 French guidelines on "Muscle relaxants and reversal in anaesthesia", a consensus committee of sixteen experts was convened. A formal policy of declaration and monitoring of conflicts of interest (COI) was developed at the outset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e. pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were required to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence were stressed. Few of the recommendations remained ungraded. METHODS: The panel focused on eight questions: (1) In the absence of difficult mask ventilation criteria, is it necessary to check the possibility of ventilation via a facemask before muscle relaxant injection? Is it necessary to use muscle relaxants to facilitate facemask ventilation? (2) Is the use of muscle relaxants necessary to facilitate tracheal intubation? (3) Is the use of muscle relaxants necessary to facilitate the insertion of a supraglottic device and management of related complications? (4) Is it necessary to monitor neuromuscular blockade for airway management? (5) Is the use of muscle relaxants necessary to facilitate interventional procedures, and if so, which procedures? (6) Is intraoperative monitoring of neuromuscular blockade necessary? (7) What are the strategies for preventing and treating residual neuromuscular blockade? (8) What are the indications and precautions for use of both muscle relaxants and reversal agents in special populations (e.g. electroconvulsive therapy, obesepatients, children, neuromuscular diseases, renal/hepatic failure, elderly patients)? All questions were formulated using the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) model for clinical questions and evidence profiles were generated. The results of the literature analysis and the recommendations were then assessed using the GRADE® system. RESULTS: The summaries prepared by the SFAR Guideline panel resulted in thirty-one recommendations on muscle relaxants and reversal agents in anaesthesia. Of these recommendations, eleven have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) while twenty have a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). No recommendations could be provided using the GRADE® system for five of the questions, and for two of these questions expert opinions were given. After two rounds of discussion and an amendment, a strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations. CONCLUSION: Substantial agreement exists among experts regarding many strong recommendations for the improvement of practice concerning the use of muscle relaxants and reversal agents during anaesthesia. In particular, the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR) recommends the use of a device to monitor neuromuscular blockade throughout anaesthesia.