Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Report of the 2022 Perfusion Perspectives of Waste Anesthetic Gas Exposure Survey.
Brock, Megan; Johnson, Blaine; Shahul, Sajid; Chaney, Mark; Tung, Avery.
Afiliación
  • Brock M; Perfusion Services, UChicago Medicine, Chicago, IL.
  • Johnson B; Perfusion Services, UChicago Medicine, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: blaine.johnson@uchicagomedicine.org.
  • Shahul S; Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
  • Chaney M; Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
  • Tung A; Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth ; 38(10): 2278-2286, 2024 Oct.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38937176
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

To describe perfusionist perspectives regarding waste anesthetic gas (WAG) management during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and compare results to existing American Society of Extracorporeal Technology (AmSECT) guidelines and the 2016 National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Survey of healthcare workers and anesthesia care providers.

DESIGN:

We developed a questionnaire with 26 questions covering institutional demographics, use of anesthetic gases, scavenging systems, and air monitoring practices.

SETTING:

Web-based survey.

PARTICIPANTS:

Self-identified board-eligible perfusionist members of AmSECT, the American Academy of Cardiovascular Perfusion, and the Maryland and Wisconsin State Perfusion Societies in 2022.

INTERVENTIONS:

None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

RESULTS:

Of the 4,303 providers sent the survey, 365 (8.5%) participated. Although 92% of the respondents (335/364) routinely administered inhaled anesthetics via the oxygenator, only 73.2% (259/354) routinely scavenged WAG during CPB cases. Only 6.6% of the respondents (22/336) conducted environmental monitoring for WAG levels. Cited reasons for not scavenging waste gases included a lack of applicable protocols and waste gas scavenging systems, excessive cost, and no need for scavenging.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings identify a gap between AmSECT guidelines and current perfusionist behavior and suggest potential strategies for reducing WAG leakage during CPB. Effective management should incorporate hazard awareness training, availability of standard procedures to minimize exposure, scavenging systems, regular equipment inspection, and prompt attention to spills and leaks. In high-risk environments, environmental surveillance for waste gas levels would also contribute to waste gas safety. A comprehensive approach to managing waste anesthetic gases will reduce WAG leakage, help improve health care worker safety, and prevent potential adverse effects of exposure.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Exposición Profesional / Anestésicos por Inhalación Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Asunto de la revista: ANESTESIOLOGIA / CARDIOLOGIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Exposición Profesional / Anestésicos por Inhalación Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Asunto de la revista: ANESTESIOLOGIA / CARDIOLOGIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article