Calcium hydroxide lime--a new carbon dioxide absorbent: a rationale for judicious use of different absorbents

Production of compound A and carbon monoxide in circle systems: an in vitro comparison of two carbon dioxide absorbents

Two new generation carbon dioxide absorbents, DrägerSorb Free and Amsorb Plus, were studied in vitro for formation of compound A or carbon monoxide, during minimal gas flow (500 ml x min(-1)) with sevoflurane or desflurane. Compound A was assessed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and carbon monoxide with continuous infrared spectrometry. Fresh and dehydrated absorbents were studied. Mean (SD) time till exhaustion (inspiratory carbon dioxide concentration >or= 1 kPa) with fresh absorbents was longer with DrägerSorb Free (1233 (55) min) than with Amsorb Plus (1025 (55) min; p < 0.01). For both absorbents, values of compound A were < 1 ppm and therefore below clinically significant levels, but were up to 0.25 ppm higher with DrägerSorb Free than with Amsorb Plus. Using dehydrated absorbents, values of compound A were about 50% lower than with fresh absorbents and were identical for DrägerSorb Free and Amsorb Plus. With dehydrated absorbents, no detectable carbon monoxide was found with desflurane.

Interaction of inhalational anaesthetics with CO2 absorbents

We review the currently available carbon dioxide absorbents: sodium hydroxide lime (=soda lime), barium hydroxide lime, potassium-hydroxide-free soda lime, calcium hydroxide lime and non-caustic lime. In general, all of these carbon dioxide absorbents are liable to react with inhalational anaesthetics. However, there is a decreasing reactivity of the different absorbents with inhalational anaesthetics: barium hydroxide lime >> soda lime > potassium-hydroxide-free soda lime > calcium hydroxide lime and non-caustic lime. Gaseous compounds generated by the reaction of the anaesthetics with desiccated absorbents are those that threaten patients. All measures are comprehensively described to--as far as possible--prevent any accidental drying out of the absorbent. Whether or not compound A, a gaseous compound formed by the reaction of sevoflurane with normally hydrated absorbents, is still a matter of concern is discussed. Even after very high loading with this compound, during long-lasting low-flow sevoflurane anaesthesias, no clinical or laboratory signs of renal impairment were observed in any of the surgical patients. Finally, guidelines for the judicious use of different absorbents are given.

Compound A concentration in the circle absorber system during low-flow sevoflurane anesthesia: comparison of Drägersorb Free, Amsorb, and Sodasorb II

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine compound A concentrations in a low-flow circuit containing Drägersorb Free (Dräger, Lübeck, Germany), Amsorb (Armstrong, Coleraine, Northern Ireland), and Sodasorb II (W. R. Grace, Lexington, MA).

DESIGN

Randomized study.

SETTING

Hamamatsu University Hospital.

PATIENTS

24 ASA physical status I and II patients scheduled for general anesthesia greater than 3 hours' duration.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were allocated to three groups of eight patients each to receive either using either Drägersorb Free, Amsorb, or Sodasorb II. Immediately before anesthesia induction, 1 kg of fresh absorbent was placed in the anesthesia canister. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane (end-tidal concentration 1% to 3%) in oxygen and nitrous oxide (FIO(2) > 0.3) at a total flow of 1 L/min.

MEASUREMENTS

Inspiratory compound A concentration in the circuit was measured once every hour.

MAIN RESULTS

Maximum compound A concentrations for Drägersorb Free, Amsorb, and Sodasorb II were 2.4 +/- 0.8 (mean +/- SD) ppm, 3.1 +/- 0.5 ppm, and 28.0 +/- 10.0 ppm (p < 0.01 vs. Drägersorb Free and Amsorb). Concentrations with Drägersorb Free and Amsorb remained at less than 4 ppm throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Because compound A concentrations in the circuit with Drägersorb Free and Amsorb were negligible, sevoflurane can be used at a fresh gas flow of 1 L/min with these two absorbents.