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.

Negative drift of sedation depth in critically ill patients receiving constant minimum alveolar concentration of isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) physicians have extended the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) to deliver and monitor long-term volatile sedation in critically ill patients. There is limited evidence of MAC's reliability in controlling sedation depth in this setting. We hypothesized that sedation depth, measured by the electroencephalography (EEG)-derived Narcotrend-Index (burst-suppression N_Index 0-awake N_Index 100), might drift downward over time despite constant MAC values. METHODS: This prospective single-centre randomized clinical study was conducted at a University Hospital Surgical Intensive Care Unit and included consecutive, postoperative ICU patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive uninterrupted inhalational sedation with isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane. The end-expiratory concentration of the anaesthetics and the EEG-derived index were measured continuously in time-stamped pairs. Sedation depth was also monitored using Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale (RASS). The paired t-test and linear models (bootstrapped or multilevel) have been employed to analyze MAC, N_Index and RASS across the three groups. RESULTS: Thirty patients were recruited (female/male: 10/20, age 64 ± 11, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II 30 ± 10). In the first 24 h, 21.208 pairs of data points (N_Index and MAC) were recorded. The median MAC of 0.58 ± 0.06 remained stable over the sedation time in all three groups. The t-test indicated in the isoflurane and sevoflurane groups a significant drop in RASS and EEG-derived N_Index in the first versus last two sedation hours. We applied a multilevel linear model on the entire longitudinal data, nested per patient, which produced the formula N_Index = 43 - 0.7·h (R2 = 0.76), showing a strong negative correlation between sedation's duration and the N_Index. Bootstrapped linear models applied for each sedation group produced: N_Index of 43-0.9, 45-0.8, and 43-0.4·h for isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane, respectively. The regression coefficient for desflurane was almost half of those for isoflurane and sevoflurane, indicating a less pronounced time-effect in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining constant MAC does not guarantee stable sedation depth. Thus, the patients necessitate frequent clinical assessments or, when unfeasible, continuous EEG monitoring. The differences across different volatile anaesthetics regarding their time-dependent negative drift requires further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03860129.

Comparison of 3 Methods to Assess Occupational Sevoflurane Exposure in Abdominal Surgeons: A Single-Center Observational Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies demonstrated that operating room personnel are exposed to anesthetic gases such as sevoflurane (SEVO). Measuring the gas burden is essential to assess the exposure objectively. Air pollution measurements and the biological monitoring of urinary SEVO and its metabolite hexafluoroisopropanol (HFIP) are possible approaches. Calculating the mass of inhaled SEVO is an alternative, but its predictive power has not been evaluated. We investigated the SEVO burdens of abdominal surgeons and hypothesized that inhaled mass calculations would be better suited than pollution measurements in their breathing zones (25 cm around nose and mouth) to estimate urinary SEVO and HFIP concentrations. The effects of potentially influencing factors were considered. METHODS: SEVO pollution was continuously measured by photoacoustic gas monitoring. Urinary SEVO and HFIP samples, which were collected before and after surgery, were analyzed by a blinded environmental toxicologist using the headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method. The mass of inhaled SEVO was calculated according to the formula mVA = cVA·(Equation is included in full-text article.)·t·ρ VA aer. (mVA: inhaled mass; cVA: volume concentration; (Equation is included in full-text article.): respiratory minute volume; t: exposure time; and ρ VA aer.: gaseous density of SEVO). A linear multilevel mixed model was used for data analysis and comparisons of the different approaches. RESULTS: Eight surgeons performed 22 pancreatic resections. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) SEVO pollution was 0.32 ppm (0.09 ppm). Urinary SEVO concentrations were below the detection limit in all samples, whereas HFIP was detectable in 82% of the preoperative samples in a mean (SD) concentration of 8.53 µg·L (15.53 µg·L; median: 2.11 µg·L, interquartile range [IQR]: 4.58 µg·L) and in all postoperative samples (25.42 µg·L [21.39 µg·L]). The mean (SD) inhaled SEVO mass was 5.67 mg (2.55 mg). The postoperative HFIP concentrations correlated linearly to the SEVO concentrations in the surgeons' breathing zones (ß = 216.89; P < .001) and to the calculated masses of inhaled SEVO (ß = 4.17; P = .018). The surgeon's body mass index (BMI), age, and the frequency of surgeries within the last 24 hours before study entry did not influence the relation between HFIP concentration and air pollution or inhaled mass, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The biological SEVO burden, expressed as urinary HFIP concentration, can be estimated by monitoring SEVO pollution in the personnel's individual breathing zone. Urinary SEVO was not an appropriate biomarker in this setting.

High dose ibuprofen as a monotherapy on an around-the-clock basis fails to control pain in children undergoing tonsil surgery: a prospective observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: The optimal pain management concept in children after tonsil surgery is controversial. Ibuprofen on an "around-the-clock" basis has been suggested to control postoperative pain sufficiently. Therefore, we established a standard scheme with weight-adapted recommended maximum ibuprofen dose. A reliable assessment of pain intensity can be performed with the Children's and Infants' Postoperative Pain Scale (CHIPPS) in children < 5 years, or with the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) in children aged ≥ 5 years. The Parents' Postoperative Pain Measure (PPPM-D) may be a useful tool for both age groups. We hypothesized that not more than 30% of the children would need an opioid rescue medication during their in-hospital stay and analyzed the consistency of the PPPM-D with other pain scales. METHODS: We included 158 in-patients aged 2-12 years. Ibuprofen was orally administered every 8 h. Three times daily, pain scores were assessed by CHIPPS or FPS-R, respectively. The PPPM-D was used in all children. Exceeding the cut-off value in one of the tools was regarded as relevant pain. RESULTS: A rescue medication was needed in 82.1% of children after tonsillectomy and 51.3% of children after tonsillotomy (P < 0.001). The cut-off value for relevant pain was mostly exceeded in the PPPM-D, but its overall concordance to the reference scales was low. CONCLUSION: High-dose ibuprofen "around-the-clock" is insufficient to control pain in children after tonsil surgery. Research is needed to find an optimal schema for management and assessment of postoperative pain.

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.

Environmental safety: Air pollution while using MIRUS™ for short-term sedation in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: MIRUS™ is a device for target-controlled inhalational sedation in the ICU in combination with use of isoflurane, or sevoflurane, or desflurane. The feasibility of this device has recently been proven; however, ICU staff exposure may restrict its application. We investigated ICU ambient room pollution during daily work to estimate ICU personnel exposure while using MIRUS™. METHODS: This observational study assessed pollution levels around 15 adult surgical patients who received volatile anaesthetics-based sedation for a median of 11 hours. Measurements were performed by photoacoustic gas monitoring in real-time at different positions near the patient and in the personnel's breathing zone. Additionally, the impact of the Clean Air™ open reservoir scavenging system on volatile agent pollution was evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline concentrations [ppm] during intervention and rest periods were isoflurane c¯mean = 0.58 ± 0.49, c¯max = 5.72; sevoflurane c¯mean = 0.22 ± 0.20, c¯max = 7.93; and desflurane c¯mean = 0.65 ± 0.57, c¯max = 6.65. Refilling MIRUS™ with liquid anaesthetic yielded gas concentrations of c¯mean = 2.18 ± 1.48 ppm and c¯max = 13.03 ± 9.37 ppm in the personnel's breathing zone. Air pollution in the patient's room was approximately five times higher without a scavenging system. CONCLUSION: Ambient room pollution was minimal in most cases, and the measured values were within or below the recommended exposure limits. Caution should be taken during refilling of the MIRUS™ system, as this was accompanied by higher pollution levels. The combined use of air-conditioning and gas scavenging systems is strongly recommended.

Photoacoustic gas monitoring for anesthetic gas pollution measurements and its cross-sensitivity to alcoholic disinfectants.

BACKGROUND: Real-time photoacoustic gas monitoring is used for personnel exposure and environmental monitoring, but its accuracy varies when organic solvents such as alcohol contaminate measurements. This is problematic for anesthetic gas measurements in hospitals, because most disinfectants contain alcohol, which could lead to false-high gas concentrations. We investigated the cross-sensitivities of the photoacoustic gas monitor Innova 1412 (AirTech Instruments, LumaSense, Denmark) against alcohols and alcoholic disinfectants while measuring sevoflurane, desflurane and isoflurane in a laboratory and in hospital during surgery. METHODS: 25 mL ethyl alcohol was distributed on a hotplate. An optical filter for isoflurane was used and the gas monitor measured the 'isoflurane' concentration for five minutes with the measuring probe fixed 30 cm above the hotplate. Then, 5 mL isoflurane was added vaporized via an Anesthetic Conserving Device (Sedana Medical, Uppsala, Sweden). After one-hour measurement, 25 mL isopropyl alcohol, N-propanol, and two alcoholic disinfectants were subsequently added, each in combination with 5 mL isoflurane. The same experiment was in turn performed for sevoflurane and desflurane. The practical impact of the cross-sensitivity was investigated on abdominal surgeons who were exposed intraoperatively to sevoflurane. A new approach to overcome the gas monitor's cross-sensitivity is presented. RESULTS: Cross-sensitivity was observed for all alcohols and its strength characteristic for the tested agent. Simultaneous uses of anesthetic gases and alcohols increased the concentrations and the recovery times significantly, especially while sevoflurane was utilized. Intraoperative measurements revealed mean and maximum sevoflurane concentrations of 0.61 ± 0.26 ppm and 15.27 ± 14.62 ppm. We replaced the cross-sensitivity peaks with the 10th percentile baseline of the anesthetic gas concentration. This reduced mean and maximum concentrations significantly by 37% (p < 0.001) and 86% (p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Photoacoustic gas monitoring is useful to detect lowest anesthetic gases concentrations, but cross-sensitivity caused one third falsely high measured mean gas concentration. One possibility to eliminate these peaks is the recovery time-based baseline approach. Caution should be taken while measuring sevoflurane, since marked cross-sensitivity peaks are to be expected.

Kinetics of isoflurane and sevoflurane in a unidirectional displacement flow and the relevance to anesthetic gas exposure by operating room personnel.

International guidelines recommend the use of ventilation systems in operating rooms to reduce the concentration of potentially hazardous substances such as anesthetic gases. The exhaust air grilles of these systems are typically located in the lower corners of the operating room and pick up two-thirds of the air volume, whereas the final third is taken from near the ceiling, which guarantees an optimal perfusion of the operating room with a sterile filtered air supply. However, this setup is also employed because anesthetic gases have a higher molecular weight than the components of air and should pool on the floor if movement is kept to a minimum and if a ventilation system with a unidirectional displacement flow is employed. However, this anticipated pooling of volatile anesthetics at the floor level has never been proven. Thus, we herein investigated the flow behaviors of isoflurane, sevoflurane, and carbon dioxide (for comparison) in a measuring chamber sized 2.46 × 1.85 × 5.40 m with a velocity of 0.3 m/sec and a degree of turbulence <20%. Gas concentrations were measured at 1,728 measuring positions throughout the measuring chamber, and the flow behaviors of isoflurane and sevoflurane were found to be similar, with an overlap of 90%. The largest spread of both gases was 55 cm at 5.4 m from the emission source. Interestingly, neither isoflurane nor sevoflurane was detected at floor level, but a continuous cone-like spreading was observed due to gravity. In contrast, carbon dioxide accumulated at floor level in the form of a gas cloud. Thus, floor level exhaust ventilation systems are likely unsuitable for the collection and removal of anesthetic gases from operating rooms.

The Personnel's Sevoflurane Exposure in the Postanesthesia Care Unit Measured by Photoacoustic Gas Monitoring and Hexafluoroisopropanol Biomonitoring.

PURPOSE: Room ventilation in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) is often poor, although patients exhale anesthetic gases. We investigated the PACU personnel's environmental and biological sevoflurane (SEVO) burden during patient care. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. METHODS: Air pollution was measured by photoacoustic gas monitoring in the middle of the PACU, above the patient's face, and on the PACU corridor. Urinary SEVO and hexafluoroisopropanol concentrations were determined. FINDINGS: Mean air pollution was 0.34 ± 0.07 ppm in the middle of the PACU, 0.56 ± 0.17 ppm above the patient's face, and 0.47 ± 0.06 ppm on the corridor. Biological preshift exposure levels were 0.13 ± 0.03 mcg/L (SEVO) and 4.72 ± 5.41 mcg/L (hexafluoroisopropanol). Postshift concentrations increased significantly to 0.20 ± 0.06 mcg/L (P = .004) and 42.18 ± 27.82 mcg/L (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: PACU personnel were environmentally and biologically exposed to SEVO, but exposure levels were minimal according to current recommendations.

Inhaled anesthetic agent sedation in the ICU and trace gas concentrations: a review.

There is a growing interest in the use of volatile anesthetics for inhalational sedation of adult critically ill patients in the ICU. Its safety and efficacy has been demonstrated in various studies and technical equipment such as the anaesthetic conserving device (AnaConDa™; Sedana Medical, Uppsala, Sweden) or the MIRUS™ system (Pall Medical, Dreieich, Germany) have significantly simplified the application of volatile anesthetics in the ICU. However, the personnel's exposure to waste anesthetic gas during daily work is possibly disadvantageous, because there is still uncertainty about potential health risks. The fact that average threshold limit concentrations for isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane either differ significantly between countries or are not even defined at all, leads to raising concerns among ICU staff. In this review, benefits, risks, and technical aspects of inhalational sedation in the ICU are discussed. Further, the potential health effects of occupational long-term low-concentration agent exposure, the staffs' exposure levels in clinical practice, and strategies to minimize the individual gas exposure are reviewed.

Halving the volume of AnaConDa: initial clinical experience with a new small-volume anaesthetic reflector in critically ill patients-a quality improvement project.

AnaConDa-100 ml (ACD-100, Sedana Medical, Uppsala, Sweden) is well established for inhalation sedation in the intensive care unit. But because of its large dead space, the system can retain carbon dioxide (CO2) and increase ventilatory demands. We therefore evaluated whether AnaConDa-50 ml (ACD-50), a device with half the internal volume, reduces CO2 retention and ventilatory demands during sedation of invasively ventilated, critically ill patients. Ten patients participated in this cross-over protocol. After sedation with isoflurane via ACD-100 for 24 h, the 5-h observation period started. During the first hour, ACD-100 was used; for the next 2 h, ACD-50; and for the last 2 h, ACD-100 was used again. Sedation was titrated to Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) score - 3 to - 4 and a processed electroencephalogram (Narcotrend Index, Narcotrend-Gruppe, Hannover, Germany) was recorded. Minute ventilation, CO2 elimination, and isoflurane consumption were compared. All patients were deeply sedated (Narcotrend Index, mean ± SD: 38 ± 10; RASS scores - 3 to - 5) and breathed spontaneously with pressure support throughout the observation period. Infusion rates of isoflurane and opioid, either remifentanil or sufentanil, as well as ventilator settings were unchanged. Minute ventilation and end-tidal CO2 were significantly reduced with the ACD-50, respiratory rate remained unchanged, and tidal volume decreased by 66 ± 43 ml. End-tidal isoflurane concentrations were also slightly reduced while haemodynamic measures remained constant. The ACD-50 reduces the tidal volume needed to eliminate carbon dioxide without augmenting isoflurane consumption.

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.

Use of the MIRUS™ system for general anaesthesia during surgery: a comparison of isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane.

The MIRUS™ system enables automated end-expired control of volatile anaesthetics. The device is positioned between the Y-piece of the breathing system and the patient's airway. The system has been tested in vitro and to provide sedation in the ICU with end-expired concentrations up to 0.5 MAC. We describe its performance in a clinical setting with concentrations up to 1.0 MAC. In 63 ASA II-III patients undergoing elective hip or knee replacement surgery, the MIRUS™ was set to keep the end-expired desflurane, sevoflurane, or isoflurane concentration at 1 MAC while ventilating the patient with the PB-840 ICU ventilator. After 1 h, the ventilation mode was switched from controlled to support mode. Time to 0.5 and 1 MAC, agent usage, and emergence times, work of breathing, and feasibility were assessed. In 60 out of 63 patients 1.0 MAC could be reached and remained constant during surgery. Gas consumption was as follows: desflurane (41.7 ± 7.9 ml h-1), sevoflurane (24.3 ± 4.8 ml h-1) and isoflurane (11.2 ± 3.3 ml h-1). Extubation was faster after desflurane use (min:sec): desflurane 5:27 ± 1:59; sevoflurane 6:19 ± 2:56; and isoflurane 9:31 ± 6:04. The support mode was well tolerated. The MIRUS™ system reliable delivers 1.0 MAC of the modern inhaled agents, both during mechanical ventilation and spontaneous (assisted) breathing. Agent usage is highest with desflurane (highest MAC) but results in the fastest emergence. Trial registry number: Clinical Trials Registry, ref.: NCT0234509.

The child's behavior during inhalational induction and its impact on the anesthesiologist's sevoflurane exposure.

BACKGROUND: Sevoflurane is commonly used for inhalational inductions in children, but the personnel's exposure to it is potentially harmful. Guidance to reduce gas pollution refers mainly to technical aspects, but the impact of the child's behavior has not yet been studied. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine how child behavior, according to the Frankl Behavioral Scale, affects the amount of waste sevoflurane in anesthesiologists' breathing zones. METHODS: Sixty-eight children aged 36-96 months undergoing elective ENT surgery were recruited for this prospective, observational investigation. After oral midazolam premedication (0.5 mg/kg body weight), patients obtained sevoflurane using a facemask with an inspiratory concentration of 8 Vol.% in 100% oxygen (flow 10 L/min). Ventilation was manually supported and a venous catheter was placed. The inspiratory sevoflurane concentration was reduced, and remifentanil and propofol were administered before the facemask was removed and a cuffed tracheal tube inserted. The child's behavior toward the operating room personnel during induction was evaluated by the anesthesiologist (Frankl Behavioral Scale: 1-2 = negative behavior, 3-4 = positive behavior). During induction mean (c¯mean) and maximum (c¯max), sevoflurane concentrations were determined in the anesthesiologist's breathing zone by continuous photoacoustic gas monitoring. RESULTS: Mean and maximum sevoflurane concentrations were c¯mean = 4.38 ± 4.02 p.p.m and c¯max = 70.06 ± 61.08 p.p.m in patients with positive behaviors and sufficient premedications and c¯mean = 12.63 ± 8.66 p.p.m and c¯max = 242.86 ± 139.91 p.p.m in children with negative behaviors and insufficient premedications (c¯mean: P < .001; c¯max: P < .001). CONCLUSION: Negative behavior was accompanied by significantly higher mean and maximum sevoflurane concentrations in the anesthesiologist's breathing zone compared with children with positive attitudes. Consequently, the status of premedication influences the amount of sevoflurane pollution in the air of operating rooms.

Survival after long-term isoflurane sedation as opposed to intravenous sedation in critically ill surgical patients: Retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Isoflurane has shown better control of intensive care sedation than propofol or midazolam and seems to be a useful alternative. However, its effect on survival remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare mortality after sedation with either isoflurane or propofol/midazolam. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of data in a hospital database for a cohort of consecutive patients. SETTING: Sixteen-bed interdisciplinary surgical ICU of a German university hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive cohort of 369 critically ill surgical patients defined within the database of the hospital information system. All patients were continuously ventilated and sedated for more than 96 h between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2010. After excluding 169 patients (93 >79 years old, 10 <40 years old, 46 mixed sedation, 20 lost to follow-up), 200 patients were studied, 72 after isoflurane and 128 after propofol/midazolam. INTERVENTIONS: Sedation with isoflurane using the AnaConDa system compared with intravenous sedation with propofol or midazolam. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital mortality (primary) and 365-day mortality (secondary) were compared with the Kaplan-Meier analysis and a log-rank test. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) [with 95% confidence interval (95% CI)] were calculated by logistic regression analyses to determine the risk of death after isoflurane sedation. RESULTS: After sedation with isoflurane, the in-hospital mortality and 365-day mortality were significantly lower than after propofol/midazolam sedation: 40 versus 63% (P = 0.005) and 50 versus 70% (P = 0.013), respectively. After adjustment for potential confounders (coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute renal failure, creatinine, age and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II), patients after isoflurane were at a lower risk of death during their hospital stay (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.68, P = 0.002) and within the first 365 days (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81, P = 0.010). CONCLUSION: Compared with propofol/midazolam sedation, long-term sedation with isoflurane seems to be well tolerated in this group of critically ill patients after surgery.

Effects of liberal vs. conventional volume regimen on pulmonary function in posterior scoliosis surgery.

BACKGROUND: We observed an increased rate of pulmonary complications (hypoxemia, pulmonary edema, re-intubation) in some patients after posterior spinal fusion, though standardized intraoperative volume regimens for major surgery were used. Therefore, we focused on the effects of two different standardized fluid regimens (liberal vs. conventional) as well as on two different types of postoperative pain management (thoracic epidural catheter vs. intravenous analgesia) concerning pulmonary function in patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion. METHODS: 23 patients received a conventional intraoperative fluid management (crystalloids 5.5 ml/kg/h), whereas 22 patients obtained a liberal regimen (crystalloids approximately 11 ml/kg/h) during surgery. After surgery a thoracic epidural catheter was used in 29 patients, whereas 16 patients got a conventional intravenous analgesia. Regarding pulmonary outcome, the re-intubation rate, the postoperative oxygen saturations as well as delivery volumes and retention times of pleural drainages were evaluated. RESULTS: Patients with conventional intraoperative fluid management had a less frequent reintubation rate (p = 0.015), better postoperative oxygen saturations (p = 0.043) and lower delivery volumes of pleural drainages (p = 0.027) compared to those patients with liberal volume regimen. Patients with thoracic epidural catheter had improved oxygen saturations on pulse oximetry at the first day after surgery (p < 0.001) and lower delivery volumes of pleural drainages than patients with intravenous analgesia (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a more restrictive fluid management (better pulmonary oxygen uptake and ventilation, less pulmonary edema) and a thoracic epidural catheter (sympatholysis, pain management) in posterior spinal fusion may be advantageous as both factors can improve pulmonary outcome.

Ventilatory Effects of Isoflurane Sedation via the Sedaconda ACD-S versus ACD-L: A Substudy of a Randomized Trial.

Devices used to deliver inhaled sedation increase dead space ventilation. We therefore compared ventilatory effects among isoflurane sedation via the Sedaconda ACD-S (internal volume: 50 mL), isoflurane sedation via the Sedaconda ACD-L (100 mL), and propofol sedation with standard mechanical ventilation with heat and moisture exchangers (HME). This is a substudy of a randomized trial that compared inhaled isoflurane sedation via the ACD-S or ACD-L to intravenous propofol sedation in 301 intensive care patients. Data from the first 24 h after study inclusion were analyzed using linear mixed models. Primary outcome was minute ventilation. Secondary outcomes were tidal volume, respiratory rate, arterial carbon dioxide pressure, and isoflurane consumption. In total, 151 patients were randomized to propofol and 150 to isoflurane sedation; 64 patients received isoflurane via the ACD-S and 86 patients via the ACD-L. While use of the ACD-L was associated with higher minute ventilation (average difference (95% confidence interval): 1.3 (0.7, 1.8) L/min, p < 0.001), higher tidal volumes (44 (16, 72) mL, p = 0.002), higher respiratory rates (1.2 (0.1, 2.2) breaths/min, p = 0.025), and higher arterial carbon dioxide pressures (3.4 (1.2, 5.6) mmHg, p = 0.002), use of the ACD-S did not significantly affect ventilation compared to standard mechanical ventilation and sedation. Isoflurane consumption was slightly less with the ACD-L compared to the ACD-S (-0.7 (-1.3, 0.1) mL/h, p = 0.022). The Sedaconda ACD-S compared to the ACD-L is associated with reduced minute ventilation and does not significantly affect ventilation compared to a standard mechanical ventilation and sedation setting. The smaller ACD-S is therefore the device of choice to minimize impact on ventilation, especially in patients with a limited ability to compensate (e.g., COPD patients). Volatile anesthetic consumption is slightly higher with the ACD-S compared to the ACD-L.

ICU- and ventilator-free days with isoflurane or propofol as a primary sedative - A post- hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare ICU-free (ICU-FD) and ventilator-free days (VFD) in the 30 days after randomization in patients that received isoflurane or propofol without receiving the other sedative. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared inhaled isoflurane via the Sedaconda® anaesthetic conserving device (ACD) with intravenous propofol for up to 54 h (Meiser et al. 2021). After end of study treatment, continued sedation was locally determined. Patients were eligible for this post-hoc analysis only if they had available 30-day follow-up data and never converted to the other drug in the 30 days from randomization. Data on ventilator use, ICU stay, concomitant sedative use, renal replacement therapy (RRT) and mortality were collected. RESULTS: Sixty-nine of 150 patients randomized to isoflurane and 109 of 151 patients randomized to propofol were eligible. After adjusting for potential confounders, the isoflurane group had more ICU-FD than the propofol group (17.3 vs 13.8 days, p = 0.028). VFD for the isoflurane and propofol groups were 19.8 and 18.5 respectively (p = 0.454). Other sedatives were used more frequently (p < 0.0001) and RRT started in a greater proportion of patients in the propofol group (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Isoflurane via the ACD was not associated with more VFD but with more ICU-FD and less concomitant sedative use.