Volumetric and reflective device dead space of anaesthetic reflectors under different conditions.

Inhalation sedation is increasingly performed in intensive care units. For this purpose, two anaesthetic reflectors, AnaConDa™ and Mirus™ are commercially available. However, their internal volume (100 ml) and possible carbon dioxide reflection raised concerns. Therefore, we compared carbon dioxide elimination of both with a heat moisture exchanger (HME, 35 ml) in a test lung model. A constant flow of carbon dioxide was insufflated into the test lung, ventilated with 500 ml, 10 breaths per minute. HME, MIRUS and AnaConDa were connected successively. Inspired (insp-CO2) and end-tidal carbon dioxide concentrations (et-CO2) were measured under four conditions: ambient temperature pressure (ATP), body temperature pressure saturated (BTPS), BTPS with 0.4 Vol% (ISO-0.4), and 1.2 Vol% isoflurane (ISO-1.2). Tidal volume increase to maintain normocapnia was also determined. Insp-CO2 was higher with AnaConDa compared to MIRUS and higher under ATP compared to BTPS. Isoflurane further decreased insp-CO2 and abolished the difference between AnaConDa and MIRUS. Et-CO2 showed similar effects. In addition to volumetric dead space, reflective dead space was determined as 198 ± 6/58 ± 6/35 ± 0/25 ± 0 ml under ATP/BTPS/ISO-0.4/ISO-1.2 conditions for AnaConDa, and 92 ± 6/25 ± 0/25 ± 0/25 ± 0 ml under the same conditions for MIRUS, respectively. Under BTPS conditions and with the use of moderate inhaled agent concentrations, reflective dead space is small and similar between the two devices.

Evaluating the efficiency of desflurane reflection in two commercially available reflectors.

With the AnaConDa™ and the MIRUS™ system, volatile anesthetics can be administered for inhalation sedation in intensive care units. Instead of a circle system, both devices use anesthetic reflectors to save on the anesthetic agent. We studied the efficiency of desflurane reflection with both devices using different tidal volumes (VT), respiratory rates (RR), and 'patient' concentrations (CPat) in a bench study. A test lung was ventilated with four settings (volume control, RR × VT: 10 × 300 mL, 10 × 500 mL, 20 × 500 mL, 10 × 1000 mL). Two different methods for determination of reflection efficiency were established: First (steady state), a bypass flow carried desflurane into the test lung (flowin), the input concentration (Cin) was varied (1-17 vol%), and the same flow (flowex, Cex) was suctioned from the test lung. After equilibration, CPat was stored online and averaged; efficiency [%] was calculated [Formula: see text]. Second (washout), flowin and flowex were stopped, the decline of CPat was measured; efficiency was calculated from the decay constant of the exponential regression equation. Both measurement methods yielded similar results (Bland-Altman: bias: -0.9 %, accuracy: ±5.55 %). Efficiencies higher than 80 % (>80 % of molecules exhaled are reflected) could be demonstrated in the clinical range of CPat and VT. Efficiency inversely correlates with the product of CPat and VT which can be imagined as the volume of anesthetic vapor exhaled by the patient in one breath, but not with the respiratory frequency. Efficiency of the AnaConDa™ was higher for each setting compared with the MIRUS™. Desflurane is reflected by both reflectors with efficiencies high enough for clinical use.