Comparison of a novel clinical score to estimate the risk of REsidual neuromuscular block Prediction Score and the last train-of-four count documented in the electronic anaesthesia record: A retrospective cohort study of electronic data on file

BACKGROUND Residual neuromuscular block (rNMB) after surgery is not difficult to identify if proper neuromuscular monitoring is used, but many clinicians do not use quantitative neuromuscular monitoring. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to develop a REsidual neuromuscular block Prediction Score (REPS) to predict postoperative rNMB and compare the predictive accuracy of the prediction score with train-of-four count (TOFC) measurement at the end of a surgical case. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study of data on file. DATA SOURCE Electronic patient data and peri-operative data on vital signs, administered medications, and train-of-four ratio (TOFR) obtained in the postoperative recovery rooms [postanaesthesia care unit (PACU)] at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. PATIENTS Quantitative TOFR measurements obtained on admission to the PACU were available from 2144 adult noncardiac surgical patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Presence of rNMB at PACU admission, defined as a TOFR of less than 0.9. RESULTS In the score development cohort (n=2144), rNMB occurred in 432 cases (20.2%). Ten independent predictors for residual paralysis were identified and used for the score development. The final model included: hepatic failure, neurological disease, high-neostigmine dose, metastatic tumour, female sex, short time between neuromuscular blocking agent administration and extubation, aminosteroidal neuromuscular blocking agent, BMI more than 35, absence of nurse anaesthetist and having an experienced surgeon. The model discrimination by C statistics was 0.63, 95% confidence interval (0.60 to 0.66), and risk categories derived from the REPS had a higher accuracy than the last documented intra-operative TOFC for predicting rNMB (net reclassification improvement score 0.26, standard error 0.03, P 

https://ift.tt/2IBhwGR