↓ Skip to main content

Survey of postoperative residual curarization, acute respiratory events and approach of anesthesiologists

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 106)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Survey of postoperative residual curarization, acute respiratory events and approach of anesthesiologists
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.bjane.2012.06.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ismail Aytac, Aysun Postaci, Betul Aytac, Ozlem Sacan, Gulcin Hilal Alay, Bulent Celik, Kadriye Kahveci, Bayazit Dikmen

Abstract

residual paralysis following the use of neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBDs) without neuromuscular monitoring remains a clinical problem, even when NMBDs are used. This study surveys postoperative residual curarization and critical respiratory events in the recovery room, as well as the clinical approach to PORC of anesthesiologists in our institution. This observational study included 415 patients who received general anesthesia with intermediate-acting NMBDs. Anesthesia was maintained by non-participating anesthesiologists who were blinded to the study. Neuromuscular monitoring was performed upon arrival in the recovery room. A CRE was defined as requiring airway support, peripheral oxygen saturation <90% and 90-93% despite receiving 3L/min nasal O2, respiratory rate >20breaths/min, accessory muscle usage, difficulty with swallowing or speaking, and requiring reintubation. The clinical approach of our anesthesiologists toward reversal agents was examined using an 8-question mini-survey shortly after the study. The incidence of PORC was 43% (n=179) for TOFR <0.9, and 15% (n=61) for TOFR <0.7. The incidence of TOFR <0.9 was significantly higher in women, in those with ASA physical status 3, and with anesthesia of short duration (p<0.05). In addition, 66% (n=272) of the 415 patients arriving at the recovery room had received neostigmine. A TOFR <0.9 was found in 46% (n=126) of the patients receiving neostigmine. When routine objective neuromuscular monitoring is not available, PORC remains a clinical problem despite the use of NMBDs. The timing and optimal antagonism of the neuromuscular blockade, and routine objective neuromuscular monitoring is recommended to enhance patient safety.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Researcher 10 18%
Other 8 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 10 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,611,559
of 12,181,658 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#31
of 106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,736
of 337,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,181,658 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 106 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.