Current Trends in Neuromuscular Blockade, Management, and Monitoring amongst Singaporean Anaesthetists

• Published in: Anesthesiology Research and Practice Vol. 2016; no. 2016; pp. 109 - 114
• Main Authors: Teoh, Wendy H., Tseng, Phillip S., Ledowski, Thomas
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cairo, Egypt Hindawi Limiteds 01.01.2016; Hindawi Publishing Corporation; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; Hindawi Limited
• Subjects: Anesthesiologists; Methods; Nerve block; Practice; Singapore
• ISSN: 1687-6962; 1687-6970
• DOI: 10.1155/2016/7284146

Introduction. This survey aimed to investigate the attitudes/practice pertaining the use, management, and monitoring of neuromuscular blockade amongst Singaporean anaesthetists. Methods. All specialist accredited anaesthetists registered with the Singapore Medical Council were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. Results. The response rate was 39.5%. Neuromuscular monitoring (NM) was used routinely by only 13.1% despite the widespread availability of monitors. 82% stated residual NMB (RNMB) was a significant risk factor for patient outcome, but only 24% believed NMB monitoring should be compulsory in all paralyzed patients. 63.6% of anaesthetists estimated the risk of RNMB in their own institutions to be <5%. 63.1% always gave reversal. Neostigmine was predominantly used (85.1%), with 28.2% using sugammadex at least sometimes, citing unavailability and high costs. However, 83.8% believed in sugammadex’s benefits for patients’ safety and >50% said such benefits may be able to offset the associated costs. Conclusions. There is a significant need for reeducation about RNMB, studies on local RNMB incidences, and strengthening of current monitoring practices and guidelines. Strategies are discussed. As NM monitors appear widely available and reversal of NMB standard practice, it is hopeful that Singaporean anaesthetists will change and strive for evidence-based best clinical practice to enhance patient safety.