Comparison of Acceleromyography (AMG) and Mechanomyography (MMG) for Establishing Potency of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents

Comparison of Acceleromyography and Mechanomyography for Establishing Potency of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents, A Randomized Controlled Study

Status

Completed

Phases

Phase 4

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT00660413

Enrollment

Registered

2008-04-17

Start date

2007-12-31

Completion date

2008-02-29

Last updated

2008-04-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Neuromuscular Blockade

Keywords

Acceleromyography, Mechanomyography, Neuromuscular block, Neuromuscular monitoring, Dose-response, Potency, Rocuronium

Brief summary

The purpose of this study was to compare two methods for neuromuscular monitoring, acceleromyography and mechanomyography for establishing the dose-response relationship and the potency of a neuromuscular blocking agent using rocuronium as an example. We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between potencies estimated using acceleromyography and mechanomyography.

Interventions

DEVICETOF-Watch SX (Acceleromyography)

Randomization of AMG to dominant or non-dominant arm. MMG at contralateral arm.

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

SINGLE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

18 Years to 65 Years

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* ASA I-III * Ideal weight +/-20% * Both arms available for neuromuscular monitoring * Surgery in supine position * Participated surgery time more than 30 min

Exclusion criteria

* Pregnant and breast-feeding women * Patients with known illness or use of medications known to influence the neuromuscular transmission * Known significant renal or hepatic dysfunction * Allergy to medications used in the study

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Comparison of ED50 with the two methods	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Comparison of ED95 with the two methods	—

Countries

Denmark

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026