[Technical requirements for buying a heat and humidity exchanger for ventilation during anesthesia. French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care]

[Prevention of infections under anesthetic breathing with breathing filters: concerted recommendations of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Krankenhaushygiene e.V. (DGKH) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin e.V. (DGAI)]

An interdisciplinary working group from the German Society of Hospital Hygiene (DGKH) and the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care (DGAI) worked out the following recommendations for infection prevention during anesthesia by using breathing system filters (BSF). The BSF shall be changed after each patient. The filter retention efficiency for airborne particles is recommended to be >99% (II). The retention performance of BSF for liquids is recommended to be at pressures of at least 60 hPa (=60 mbar) or 20 hPa above the selected maximum ventilation pressure in the anesthetic system.The anesthesia breathing system may be used for a period of up to 7 days provided that the functional requirements of the system remain unchanged and the manufacturer states this in the instructions for use. The breathing system and the manual ventilation bag are changed immediately after the respective anesthesia if the following situation has occurred or it is suspected to have occurred: Notifiable infectious disease involving the risk of transmission via the breathing system and the manual bag, e.g. tuberculosis, acute viral hepatitis, measles, influenza virus, infection and/or colonization with a multi-resistant pathogen or upper or lower respiratory tract infections. In case of visible contamination e.g. by blood or in case of defect, it is required that the BSF and also the anesthesia breathing system is changed and the breathing gas conducting parts of the anesthesia ventilator are hygienically reprocessed.Observing of the appropriate hand disinfection is very important. All surfaces of the anesthesia equipment exposed to hand contact must be disinfected after each case.

Infection prevention during anaesthesia ventilation by the use of breathing system filters (BSF): Joint recommendation by German Society of Hospital Hygiene (DGKH) and German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (DGAI)

An interdisciplinary working group from the German Society of Hospital Hygiene (DGKH) and the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (DGAI) worked out the following recommendations for infection prevention during anaesthesia by using breathing system filters (BSF). The BSF shall be changed after each patient. The filter retention efficiency for airborne particles is recommended to be >99% (II). The retention performance of BSF for liquids is recommended to be at pressures of at least 60 hPa (=60 mbar) or 20 hPa above the selected maximum ventilation pressure in the anaesthetic system. The anaesthesia breathing system may be used for a period of up to 7 days provided that the functional requirements of the system remain unchanged and the manufacturer states this in the instructions for use.THE BREATHING SYSTEM AND THE MANUAL VENTILATION BAG ARE CHANGED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RESPECTIVE ANAESTHESIA IF THE FOLLOWING SITUATION HAS OCCURRED OR IT IS SUSPECTED TO HAVE OCCURRED: Notifiable infectious disease involving the risk of transmission via the breathing system and the manual bag, e.g. tuberculosis, acute viral hepatitis, measles, influenza virus, infection and/or colonisation with a multi-resistant pathogen or upper or lower respiratory tract infections. In case of visible contamination e.g. by blood or in case of defect, it is required that the BSF and also the anaesthesia breathing system is changed and the breathing gas conducting parts of the anaesthesia ventilator are hygienically reprocessed.Observing of the appropriate hand disinfection is very important. All surfaces of the anaesthesia equipment exposed to hand contact must be disinfected after each case.

[HME filter versus patient-related replacement of tubes from the ventilation circuit for anaesthesia: a cost-benefit analysis]

Procedure-related costs were calculated for an operating theatre with 10 operating rooms. The variable parameter was the different hygiene regimens for the preparation of the anaesthesia circuit. In April 2003 a change was made for the whole anaesthesia area. Either change of the anaesthesia tube system after every patient or the use of a hydrophobic HME-F (heat and moisture exchange filter) with daily or weekly change of the anaesthesia tube system were calculated. All costs were ascertained on real findings and typical procedures. Data according to safety and hygienic value were discussed and supplemented by our own findings about perioperative pneumonia. The additional costs for the HME-F are covered by the savings for CO(2) lines and the reduction of reprocessing expenses and overall material costs were reduced. The operational work on anaesthesia machines decreased considerably. Combined cost types revealed savings up to 9,72 EUR for a single anaesthesia procedure. Filtration of the respiratory gases for particles, bacteria, viruses and airway climatisation is an additional positive effect of HME-F use. Incidence of postoperative pneumonia on intensive care units was monitored by KISS (German hospital infection surveillance system) and the change to the HME-F regimen did not indicate a higher risk of infection. By the implementation of a weekly change of the anaesthesia tube system using HME filters a hygienic management for anaesthesia circuit reprocessing was found which could mobilize considerable resources.

[Assessment of 44 heat and moisture exchange filters. What to choose?]

OBJECTIVES

If the use of heat and moisture exchange filter (HMEF) in anaesthesia is recommended by the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR), the criteria's choice are not clearly defined. Many HMEF are proposed by manufacturers which technical characteristics are different.

STUDY DESIGN

The aim of this study was to evaluate the HMEF using items of the American Association of Respiratory Care (AARC) and technical dossiers.

METHODS

All manufactures producing filters have been contacted to give their technical dossiers. Forty-eight filters have been analyzed (13 mechanical filters, 31 electrostatic filters). Each item has been scaled 0, 5 or 10. The final result was on 10.

RESULTS

Seventeen filters had a note superior to 5. There were 8 mechanical filters and 9 electrostatic filters. The difference between the filters was the size of the micro-organisms tested and the duration of the test. Some filters were not tested by independent laboratories (N = 8). There were differences between the commercial documentation and on Internet and the technical dossiers (N = 12).

DISCUSSION

We noted the good quality of the filters particularly concerning criters recommended by the Sfar (filter medium, filtration efficiency, microbial challenge number and duration of the test). The electrostatic filters recently used in anaesthesia have high performance concerning filtration efficiency. To supprime the moisture output criteria did not change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Criteria's used by manufactures to evaluate there filters are not always precised or too restrictive. The technical tests, the international norms, the certificates of validation, the ergonomic qualities and the definition of our needs are the main elements of choice of a filter.