↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Neuromuscular blockade in the elderly patient

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Neuromuscular blockade in the elderly patient
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s85183
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis A Lee, Vassilis Athanassoglou, Jaideep J Pandit

Abstract

Neuromuscular blockade is a desirable or even essential component of general anesthesia for major surgical operations. As the population continues to age, and more operations are conducted in the elderly, due consideration must be given to neuromuscular blockade in these patients to avoid possible complications. This review considers the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of neuromuscular blockade that may be altered in the elderly. Compartment distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may vary due to age-related changes in physiology, altering the duration of action with a need for reduced dosage (eg, aminosteroids). Other drugs (atracurium, cisatracurium) have more reliable duration of action and should perhaps be considered for use in the elderly. The range of interpatient variability that neuromuscular blocking drugs may exhibit is then considered and drugs with a narrower range, such as cisatracurium, may produce more predictable, and inherently safer, outcomes. Ultimately, appropriate neuromuscular monitoring should be used to guide the administration of muscle relaxants so that the risk of residual neuromuscular blockade postoperatively can be minimized. The reliability of various monitoring is considered. This paper concludes with a review of the various reversal agents, namely, anticholinesterase drugs and sugammadex, and the alterations in dosing of these that should be considered for the elderly patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 51%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 July 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,316
of 1,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,314
of 353,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#22
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 353,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.