Recovery from vecuronium neuromuscular blockade following neostigmine administration in infants, children, and adults during halothane anesthesia

19Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

To determine whether neostigmine had different effects in pediatric patients during vecuronium neuromuscular blockade, the rate of recovery following neostigmine administration was compared in infants (n = 8), children (n = 10), and adults (n = 10) during nitrous oxide-halothane anesthesia. After induction of anesthesia, patients received 100 μg/kg of vecuronium. The EMG response of the adductor pollicis was monitored after train-of-four (TOF) stimulation of the ulnar nerve every 20 s. When the first twitch of TOF spontaneously recovered to 10% of control value, neostigmine was injected (40 μg/kg in adults, 30 μg/kg in infants and children). During the first few minutes following neostigmine administration, no differences were observed between the three groups. After the 8 min, recovery was more rapid in children than in infants and adults up to and including the 15th min. Ten minutes after neostigmine administration, the first twitch (mean ± SD) rached 97 ± 3%, 99 ± 2%, and 97 ± 5% of control value in infants, children, and adults, respectively; TOF ratio was greater in children (0.96 ± 0.03) than in either adults (0.82 ± 0.17) or in infants (0.83 ± 0.14) (P < 0.05). During the first minutes after neostigmine administration, the lack of difference in TOF recovery in the three groups suggests that neostigmine is the main factor of recovery. In contrast, the more complete recovery after the eighth minute in children could be due to the faster rate of spontaneous recovery from vecuronium induced neuromuscular blockade in children.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Debaene, B., Meistelman, C., & d’Hollander, A. (1989). Recovery from vecuronium neuromuscular blockade following neostigmine administration in infants, children, and adults during halothane anesthesia. Anesthesiology, 71(6), 840–844. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-198912000-00005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free