Halving the Volume of AnaConDa: Evaluation of a New Small-Volume Anesthetic Reflector in a Test Lung Model.

BACKGROUND: Volatile anesthetics are increasingly used for sedation in intensive care units. The most common administration system is AnaConDa-100 mL (ACD-100; Sedana Medical, Uppsala, Sweden), which reflects volatile anesthetics in open ventilation circuits. AnaConDa-50 mL (ACD-50) is a new device with half the volumetric dead space. Carbon dioxide (CO2) can be retained with both devices. We therefore compared the CO2 elimination and isoflurane reflection efficiency of both devices. METHODS: A test lung constantly insufflated with CO2 was ventilated with a tidal volume of 500 mL at 10 breaths/min. End-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) partial pressure was measured using 3 different devices: a heat-and-moisture exchanger (HME, 35 mL), ACD-100, and ACD-50 under 4 different experimental conditions: ambient temperature pressure (ATP), body temperature pressure saturated (BTPS) conditions, BTPS with 0.4 Vol% isoflurane (ISO-0.4), and BTPS with 1.2 Vol% isoflurane. Fifty breaths were recorded at 3 time points (n = 150) for each device and each condition. To determine device dead space, we adjusted the tidal volume to maintain normocapnia (n = 3), for each device. Thereafter, we determined reflection efficiency by measuring isoflurane concentrations at infusion rates varying from 0.5 to 20 mL/h (n = 3), for each device. RESULTS: EtCO2 was consistently greater with ACD-100 than with ACD-50 and HME (ISO-0.4, mean ± standard deviations: ACD-100, 52.4 ± 0.8; ACD-50, 44.4 ± 0.8; HME, 40.1 ± 0.4 mm Hg; differences of means of EtCO2 [respective 95% confidence intervals]: ACD-100 - ACD-50, 8.0 [7.9-8.1] mm Hg, P < .001; ACD-100 - HME, 12.3 [12.2-12.4] mm Hg, P < .001; ACD-50 - HME, 4.3 [4.2-4.3] mm Hg, P < .001). It was greatest under ATP, less under BTPS, and least with ISO-0.4 and BTPS with 1.2 Vol% isoflurane. In addition to the 100 or 50 mL "volumetric dead space" of each AnaConDa, "reflective dead space" was 40 mL with ACD-100 and 25 mL with ACD-50 when using isoflurane. Isoflurane reflection was highest under ATP. Under BTPS with CO2 insufflation and isoflurane concentrations around 0.4 Vol%, reflection efficiency was 93% with ACD-100 and 80% with ACD-50. CONCLUSIONS: Isoflurane reflection remained sufficient with the ACD-50 at clinical anesthetic concentrations, while CO2 elimination was improved. The ACD-50 should be practical for tidal volumes as low as 200 mL, allowing lung-protective ventilation even in small patients.

Reflection efficiencies of AnaConDa-S and AnaConDa-100 for isoflurane under dry laboratory and simulated clinical conditions: a bench study using a test lung.

Background: Adequate sedation is important for the treatment of ICU patients. AnaConDa (Anesthetic-Conserving-Device; ACD; Sedana Medical, Sweden), connected between ventilator and the patient, retains isoflurane during expiration, and releases it back during inspiration. The reflection efficiency (RefEff) corresponds to the percentage of expired anesthetic molecules that are re-inspired. We compared RefEff of AnaConDa-S (ACD-50) and AnaConDa-100 (ACD-100) under laboratory (DRY) and simulated clinical conditions (CLIN) using a test lung.Methods: Measurements were made under DRY and CLIN, with different tidal volumes (TV: 300 mL & 500 mL) and infusion rates (0.5-10 mL·h-1). RefEff was calculated from the isoflurane concentration in the test-lung (CISO) and plotted against the anesthetic vapor volume exhaled in one breath (V-exh = CISO·TV).Results: DRY: RefEff of both devices was ≈90% over a wide range of V-exh, but decreased when V-exh exceeded 5-7 mL (ACD-50) or 10-15 mL (ACD-100).CLIN: RefEff of ACD-50 was 70-80% (ACD-100: 80-90%), decreasing gradually with increasing V-exh. For 1 Vol.% isoflurane at TV500, the infusion rate with ACD-50 was twofold higher compared to ACD-100 (4 versus 2 mL·h-1).Conclusion: Under DRY and concentrations <1.5 Vol.%, RefEff of both devices is around 90%. Under CLIN, ACD-100 performs better with RefEff between 80% and 90% (ACD-50:70-80%), decreasing with increased vapor volume exhaled in one breath.

Washout and Awakening Times after Inhaled Sedation of Critically Ill Patients: Desflurane Versus Isoflurane.

In recent years, inhaled sedation has been increasingly used in the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this prospective, controlled trial was to compare washout and awakening times after long term sedation with desflurane and isoflurane both administered with the Mirus™ system (TIM GmbH, Koblenz, Germany). Twenty-one consecutive critically ill patients were alternately allocated to the two study groups, obtaining inhaled sedation with either desflurane or isoflurane. After 24 h study sedation, anesthetic washout curves were recorded, and a standardized wake-up test was performed. The primary outcome measure was the time required to decrease the endtidal concentration to 50% (T50%). Secondary outcome measures were T80% and awakening times (all extremities moved, RASS -2). Decrement times (min) (desflurane versus isoflurane, median (1st quartile-3rd quartile)) (T50%: 0.3 (0.3-0.4) vs. 1.3 (0.4-2.3), log-rank test P = 0.002; P80%: 2.5 (2-5.9) vs. 12.1 (5.1-20.2), P = 0.022) and awakening times (to RASS -2: 7.5 (5.5-8.8) vs. 41.0 (24.5-43.0), P = 0.007; all extremities moved: 5.0 (4.0-8.5) vs. 13.0 (8.0-41.25), P = 0.037) were significantly shorter after desflurane compared to isoflurane. The use of desflurane with the Mirus™ system significantly shortens the washout times and leads to faster awakening after sedation of critically ill patients.