Wash-in and wash-out of sevoflurane in a test-lung model: A comparison between Aisys and FLOW-i

Sevoflurane Washin With the Dräger Apollo and GE Datex Ohmeda Aisys Workstations in Healthy Children

BACKGROUND

Sevoflurane is preferred for induction of anesthesia in children because of its rapid wash-in and minimal airway reactivity.

AIMS

The primary aim of this study was to compare the washin profiles of sevoflurane in children using the Dräger Apollo and Ohmeda Aisys workstations.

METHODS

Twenty-four healthy children (12 per workstation) scheduled for elective surgery underwent inhalational inductions with 8% sevoflurane and 66% nitrous oxide in this prospective observational study. The inspired and end-tidal sevoflurane concentrations were recorded every 30 for the first 5 min and every minute thereafter until the airway was secured. Primary and secondary outcomes consisted of the derived wash-in metrics during the induction.

RESULTS

The end-tidal to inspired ratios of sevoflurane were similar with both workstations. The mean (±SD) inspired sevoflurane concentrations with the Apollo were less than with the Aisys workstation (p < 0.013). The mean (±SD) inspired concentration at 1 min with the Apollo, 6.4% ± 0.4%, was 22% less than that with the Aisys, 7.8% ± 0.67% (mean difference 1.4, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.8, p < 0.0001). The mean (±SD) maximum inspired and expired sevoflurane concentrations during the induction period with the Apollo, 7.2% ± 0.3% and 6.8% ± 0.37%, were 18% and 15% less than those with the Aisys, 8.5% ± 0.4% and 7.8% ± 0.9%, (mean difference 1.3, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.6, p < 0.0001) and (mean difference 1.01, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.6, p < 0.002) respectively. The median (25-75th percentile) time to reach 90% of the maximum inspired concentration during the induction with the Apollo, 1.75 (1-2.4) min was 3.5-fold greater than that with the Aisys, 0.5, 0.5-0.5 min (median difference -1.25, 95% CI -1.5 to -0.5, p < 0.0019).

CONCLUSIONS

The washing of sevoflurane with the Dräger Apollo workstation is slower, and the maximum sevoflurane concentrations are less in children than with the Ohmeda Aisys workstation.

Prolonged sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to intravenous sedation in critically ill patients - A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Volatile anesthetics are used more commonly for sedation in the intensive-care-unit (ICU). However, evidence for long-term use remains low. We therefore conducted a randomized-controlled trial comparing sevoflurane with intravenous sedation with particular focus on efficacy and safety.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized-controlled phase-IIb monocentric clinical-trial ICU patients requiring at least 48 h of sedation were randomized to receive sevoflurane (S) or propofol/midazolam (P). Sedation quality was monitored using the Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale. Following termination of sedation, the time to spontaneous breathing and extubation, opioid consumption, hemodynamics, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

79 patients were eligible to randomization. Sedation quality was comparable between sevoflurane (n = 39) and propofol (n = 40). However, the use of sevoflurane lead to a reduction in time to spontaneous breathing (26 min vs. 375 min, P < 0.001). Patients sedated with propofol had lower opioid requirements (remifentanil:400 μg/h vs. 500 μg/h, P = 0.007; sufentanil:40 μg/h vs. 30 μg/h, P = 0.007) while hemodynamics, LOS or the occurrence of adverse events did not differ.

CONCLUSION

ICU patients sedated with sevoflurane >48 h may return to spontaneous breathing faster, while the quality of sedation is comparable to a propofol-based sedation regime. Sevoflurane might be considered to be safe for long-term sedation in this patient population, while being non-inferior compared to propofol.

Desflurane consumption with automated vapour control systems in two different anaesthesia machines. A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

In general anaesthesia practice a fresh gas flow (FGF) of ≥0.5 L/min is usually applied. Automated gas delivery devices are developed to reduce volatile anaesthetic consumption by limiting gas flow. This study aimed to compare desflurane consumption between automated gas control devices compared to conventional low flow anaesthesia in the Flow-I and Aisys anaesthesia machines, and to compare desflurane consumption between the two automated gas delivery devices. We hypothesised that desflurane consumption would be lower with automated gas delivery compared to conventional low flow anaesthesia, and that desflurane consumption could differ between the different gas delivery devices.

METHODS

We allocated 160 patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery into four groups, Flow-I with automated gas control, Flow-i with conventional low-flow (1 L/min), Aisys with end tidal gas control and Aisys with conventional low flow. Patients were maintained at minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) 0.7-0.8. Desflurane consumption was recorded after 9, 30 and 60 minutes of anaesthesia.

RESULTS

After 60 minutes, compared to conventional low flow anaesthesia, automated gas delivery systems reduced desflurane consumption from 25.8 to 15.2 mL for the Aisys machine (P < .001) and from 22.1 to 16.8 mL for the Flow-I (P < .001). Time to MAC 0.7 and stable FGF was shorter with Aisys endtidal control compared to Flow-I automated gas control.

CONCLUSION

Under clinical conditions, we found a reduction in desflurane consumption when using automated gas delivery devices compared to conventional low flow anaesthesia. Both devices were reliable in use.

In vitro performance evaluation of AnaConDaTM-100 and AnaConDaTM-50 compared to a circle breathing system for control and consumption of volatile anaesthetics

To identify the better volatile anaesthetic delivery system in an intensive care setting, we compared the circle breathing system and two models of reflection systems (AnaConDa™ with a dead space of 100 ml (ACD-100) or 50 ml (ACD-50)). These systems were analysed for the parameters like wash-in, consumption, and wash-out of isoflurane and sevoflurane utilising a test lung model. The test lung was connected to a respirator (circle breathing system: Aisys CS™; ACD-100/50: Puriton Bennett 840). Set parameters were volume-controlled mode, tidal volume-500 ml, respiratory rate-10/min, inspiration time-2 sec, PEEP-5 mbar, and oxygen-21%. Wash-in, consumption, and wash-out were investigated at fresh gas flows of 0.5, 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 l/min. Anaesthetic target concentrations were 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5%.  Wash-in was slower in ACD-100/-50 compared to the circle breathing system, except for fresh gas flows of 0.5 and 1.0 l/min. The consumption of isoflurane and sevoflurane in ACD-100 and ACD-50 corresponded to the fresh gas flow of 0.5-1.0 l/min in the circle breathing system. Consumption with ACD-50 was higher in comparison to ACD-100, especially at gas concentrations > 1.5%. Wash-out was quicker in ACD-100/-50 than in the circle breathing system at a fresh gas flow of 0.5 l/min, however, it was longer at all the other flow rates. Wash-out was comparable in ACD-100 and ACD-50. Wash-in and wash-out were generally quicker with the circle breathing system than in ACD-100/-50. However, consumption at 0.5 minimum alveolar concentration was comparable at flows of 0.5 and 1.0 l/min.

1-1-8 one-step sevoflurane wash-in scheme for low-flow anesthesia: simple, rapid, and predictable induction

Background

Sevoflurane is suitable for low-flow anesthesia (LFA). LFA needs a wash-in phase. The reported sevoflurane wash-in schemes lack simplicity, target coverage, and applicability. We proposed a one-step 1-1-8 wash-in scheme for sevoflurane LFA to be used with both N₂O and Air. The objective of our study was to identify time for achieving each level of alveolar concentration of sevoflurane (F_AS) from 1 to 3.5% in both contexts.

Methods

We recruited 199 adults requiring general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation and controlled ventilation—102 in group N₂O and 97 in group Air. After induction and intubation, a wash-in was started using a fresh gas flow of O₂:N₂O or O₂:Air at 1:1 L·min^− 1 plus sevoflurane 8%. The ventilation was controlled to maintain end-tidal CO₂ of 30–35 mmHg.

Results

The rising patterns of F_AS and inspired concentration of sevoflurane (F_IS) are similar, running parallel between the groups. The F_AS/F_IS ratio increased from 0.46 to 0.72 within 260 s in group N₂O and from 0.42 to 0.69 within 286 s in group Air. The respective time to achieve an F_AS of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 3.5% was 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 3.5, and 4.5 min in group N₂O and 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 5 min in group Air. The heart rate and blood pressure of both groups significantly increased initially then gradually decreased as F_AS increased.

Conclusions

The 1-1-8 wash-in scheme for sevoflurane LFA has many advantages, including simplicity, coverage, swiftness, safety, economy, and that it can be used with both N₂O and Air. A respective F_AS of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 3.5% when used with N₂O and Air can be expected at 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 3.5, and 4.5 min and 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 5 min.

Trial registration

This study was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03510013) on June 8, 2018.

European Society of Anaesthesiology Task Force on Nitrous Oxide: a narrative review of its role in clinical practice

Nitrous oxide (N₂O) is one of the oldest drugs still in use in medicine. Despite its superior pharmacokinetic properties, controversy remains over its continued use in clinical practice, reflecting in part significant improvements in the pharmacology of other anaesthetic agents and developing awareness of its shortcomings. This narrative review describes current knowledge regarding the clinical use of N₂O based on a systematic and critical analysis of the available scientific literature. The pharmacological properties of N₂O are reviewed in detail along with current evidence for the indications and contraindications of this drug in specific settings, both in perioperative care and in procedural sedation. Novel potential applications for N₂O for the prevention or treatment of chronic pain and depression are also discussed. In view of the available evidence, we recommend that the supply of N₂O in hospitals be maintained while encouraging its economic delivery using modern low flow delivery systems. Future research into its potential novel applications in prevention or treatment of chronic conditions should be pursued to better identify its role place in the developing era of precision medicine.

The impact of fresh gas flow on wash-in, wash-out time and gas consumption for sevoflurane and desflurane, comparing two anaesthesia machines, a test-lung study

Low-flow anaesthesia is considered beneficial for the patient and the environment, and it is cost reducing due to reduced anaesthetic gas consumption. An initial high-flow to saturate the circle system ( wash-in) is desirable from a clinical point of view. We measured the wash-in and wash-out times (time to saturate and to eliminate the anaesthetic agent, AA), for sevoflurane and desflurane, in a test-lung with fixed 3 MAC vaporizer setting at different fresh gas flow (FGF) and calculated the consumption of AA. We tried to find an optimal flow rate for speed and gas consumption, comparing two anaesthesia machines (AMs): Aisys and Flow-i. Time to reach 1 minimal alveolar concentration (MAC) (wash-in) decreased (p<0.05) at higher flow rates (1 – 2 – 4) but plateaued at 4-4.8 l/min. The consumption of AA was at its lowest around 4-4.8 l/min (optimal flow) for all but the Aisys /desflurane group. Wash-out times decreased as FGF increased, until reaching plateau at FGF of 4-6 l/min. Aisys had generally shorter wash-in times at flow rates < 4 l/min as well as lower consumption of AA. At higher flow rates there were little difference between the AMs. The “optimal FGF” for wash-out, elimination of gas from the test-lung and circle system, plateaued with no increase in speed beyond 6 l/min. A fresh gas flow of 4 l/min. seems “optimal” taking speed to reach a 1 MAC ET and gas consumption into account during wash-in with a fixed 3 MAC vaporizer setting, and increasing fresh gas flow beyond 6 l/min does not seem to confirm major benefit during wash-out.

Wash-in and wash-out of sevoflurane in a test-lung model: A comparison between Aisys and FLOW-i

Background: Modern anaesthesia workstations are reassuringly tight and are equipped with effective gas monitoring, thus providing good opportunities for low/minimal flow anaesthesia. A prerequisite for effective low flow anaesthesia is the possibility to rapidly increase and decrease gas concentrations in the circle system, thereby controlling the depth of anaesthesia.  Methods: We studied the wash-in and wash-out of sevoflurane in the circle system with fixed fresh gas flow and vaporizer setting. We compared two modern anaesthesia work stations, the Aisys (GE, Madison, WI, USA) and FLOW-i (Maquet, Solna, Sweden) in a test lung model.  Results: We found fresh-gas flow to have, as expected, a major influence on wash-in, as well as wash-out of sevoflurane. The wash-in time to reach a stable circle 1 MAC (2.1%) decreased from an average of 547 ± 83 seconds with a constant fresh gas flow of 300 ml/min and vaporizer setting of 8%, to a mean of 38 ± 6 seconds at a fresh gas flow of 4 L/min. There were only minor differences between the two works-stations tested; the Aisys was slightly faster at both 300 and 4 L/min flow. Time to further increase circle end-tidal concentration from 1-1.5 MAC showed likewise significant associations to fresh gas and decreased from 330 ± 24 seconds at 300 ml/min. to less than a minute at constant 4 L/min (17 ± 11 seconds), without anaesthetic machine difference. Wash-out was also fresh gas flow dependent and plateaued at 7.5 L/min.  Conclusions: Circle system wash-in and wash-out show clear fresh gas dependency and varies somewhat between the Aisys and Flow-i. The circle saturation, reaching 1 MAC end-tidal or increasing from 1-1.5 MAC can be achieved with both work-stations within 1.5 minutes at a constant fresh gas flow of 2 and 4 L/min. Wash-out plateaued at 7.5 L/min.