Building on the patient safety evidence reviewed in part 1, this second article examines the economic implications of residual neuromuscular blockade, focusing on how inconsistent monitoring contributes to avoidable postoperative complications and institutional cost.
In the second and third phases of the study, the authors examined institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data and internal cost accounting records to evaluate downstream consequences.
Their analysis found that:
These costs reflect prolonged hospitalization, increased ICU utilization, and additional staffing and treatment requirements. While such complications occur in a minority of patients, their financial and clinical impact is outsized.
Crucially, these costs are tied directly to patient safety. They arise precisely because compromised neuromuscular recovery increases vulnerability during the postoperative period. What harms patients also strains hospital resources.
The most powerful insight of the study is not just that QNM improves outcomes—but that scale and compliance deliver significant economic value.
To assess whether universal QNM could plausibly offset its own cost, the authors modeled implementation of the TwitchView Train of Four Monitor across all applicable cases at Temple University Hospital.
Key findings from the sensitivity analysis included:
The authors emphasize that the economic benefit was robust across a wide range of assumed reductions in complication rates, reinforcing that the financial case does not depend on the complete elimination of residual paralysis.
For hospitals and anesthesia departments, residual paralysis occupies a critical intersection between clinical quality and operational stewardship. Preventing avoidable pulmonary complications protects patients first—but it also reduces length of stay, ICU utilization, and the cascading costs associated with postoperative respiratory failure.
Addressing residual paralysis therefore supports:
Patient safety and economic responsibility are not competing priorities in this context. They are linked by the same underlying clinical reality: incomplete neuromuscular recovery places patients at risk.
The study also delivers an important operational message: simply purchasing monitors does not guarantee results.
To realize both safety and economic benefits, institutions must:
Without these steps, QNM becomes inconsistent—and inconsistently used safety tools rarely move safety outcomes or budgets at scale.
The economic case for quantitative neuromuscular monitoring is no longer theoretical. Independent data now shows that:
In anesthesia, what gets measured gets managed. And when monitoring is applied at scale, the value follows.
Stay tuned for the third review where the focus shifts from evidence and economics to implementation.