Volatile capture technology in sustainable anaesthetic practice: a narrative review.

Anaesthetic practice contributes to climate change. Volatile capture technology, typically based on adsorption to a carbon- or silica-based substrate, has the potential to mitigate some of the harmful effects of using halogenated hydrocarbons. Anaesthetists have a professional responsibility to use anaesthetic agents which offer the greatest safety and clinical benefit with the lowest financial cost and environmental impacts. Inhalational anaesthetics should be used at an appropriate concentration with a minimal fresh gas flow via a circle system to minimise unnecessary waste. Once practice efficiencies have been maximised, only then should technical solutions such as volatile capture be employed. In this narrative review, we focus on the available literature relating to volatile capture technology, obtained via a targeted literature search and through contacting manufacturers and researchers. We found six studies focusing on the Blue-Zone Technologies Deltasorb®, SageTech Medical SID and Baxter/ZeoSys CONTRAfluran™ volatile capture systems. Though laboratory analyses of available systems suggest that > 95% in vitro mass transfer is possible for all three systems, the in vivo results for capture efficiency vary from 25% to 73%. Currently, there is no financial incentive for healthcare organisations to capture waste anaesthetic gases, and so the value of volatile capture technology requires quantification. System-level organisations, such as Greener NHS, are best positioned to commission such evaluations and make policy decisions to guide investment. Further research using volatile capture technology in real-world settings is necessary and we highlight some priority research questions to improve our understanding of the utility of this group of technologies.

Going around in circles. Is there a continuing need to use the T-piece circuit in the practice of pediatric anesthesia?

Anesthetic equipment, including breathing circuits, has evolved over time. The T-piece circuit, in its various forms, was designed to meet the needs of its time. As equipment and techniques have moved on, it is timely to consider the place of the T-piece in modern pediatric anesthetic practice. Today the circle system is a ubiquitous part of anesthesia. When integrated with a modern anesthetic machine it offers precise control of ventilation together with continuous monitoring of airway pressure and flow: but at the cost of complexity. In comparison the T-piece offers a simple cheap lightweight design, so ergonomic in use that it almost becomes part of the anesthetist: but lacks the control and the barriers to unsafe use of more sophisticated systems. In addition, it requires high fresh gas flow adding to cost and environmental pollution. This pro-con debate discusses whether there remains a case for continuing to use the T-piece circuit in preference over other options. Possible indications for the T-Piece are discussed together with alternative strategies. The limitations of the circle system, the T-piece, and other alternative (such as self-inflating resuscitator bag) are discussed with respect to pediatric anesthetic practice.

Memsorb™, a novel CO2 removal device part I: in vitro performance with the Zeus IE®.

Soda lime-based CO2 absorbents are safe, but not ideal for reasons of ecology, economy, and dust formation. The Memsorb™ is a novel CO2 removal device that uses cardiopulmonary bypass oxygenator technology instead: a sweep gas passes through semipermeable hollow fibers, adding or removing gas from the circle breathing system. We studied the in vitro performance of a prototype Memsorb™ used with a Zeus IE® anesthesia machine when administering sevoflurane and desflurane in O2/air mixtures. The Zeus IE® equipped with Memsorb™ ventilated a 2L breathing bag with a CO2 inflow port in its tip. CO2 kinetics were studied by using different combinations of CO2 inflow (VCO2), Memsorb™ sweep gas flow, and Zeus IE® fresh gas flow (FGF) and ventilator settings. More specifically, it was determined under what circumstances the inspired CO2 concentration (FICO2) could be kept < 0.5%. O2 kinetics were studied by measuring the inspired O2 concentration (FIO2) resulting from different combinations of Memsorb™ sweep gas flow and O2 concentrations, and Zeus IE® FGFs and O2 concentrations. Memsorb™'s sevoflurane and desflurane waste was determined by measuring their injection rates during target-controlled closed-circuit anesthesia (TCCCA), and were compared to historical controls when using a soda lime absorbent (Draegersorb 800+) under identical conditions. With 160 mL/min VCO2 and 5 L/min minute ventilation (MV), lowering the sweep gas flow at any fixed Zeus IE® FGF increased FICO2 in a non-linear manner. Sweep gas flow adjustments kept FICO2 < 0.5% over the entire Zeus IE® FGF range tested with VCO2 up to 280 mL/min; tidal volume and respiratory rate affected the required sweep gas flow. At 10 L/min MV and low FGF (< 1.5 L/min), even a maximum sweep flow of 43 L/min was unable to keep FICO2 ≤ 0.5%. When the O2 concentration in the Zeus IE® FGF and the Memsorb™ sweep gas flow differed, FIO2 drifted towards the sweep gas O2 concentration, and more so as FGF was lowered; this effect was absent once FGF > minute ventilation. During sevoflurane and desflurane TCCCA, the Zeus IE® FGF remained zero while agent usage per % end-expired agent increased with increasing end-expired target agent concentrations and with a higher target FIO2. Agent waste during target-controlled delivery was higher with Memsorb™ than with the soda lime product, with the difference remaining almost constant over the FGF range studied. With a 5 L/min MV, Memsorb™ successfully removes CO2 with inflow rates up to 240 mL/min if an FICO2 of 0.5% is accepted, but at 10 L/min MV and low FGF (< 1.5 L/min), even a maximum sweep flow of 43 L/min was unable to keep FICO2 ≤ 0.5%. To avoid FIO2 deviating substantially from the O2 concentration in the fresh gas, the O2 concentration in the fresh gas and sweep gas should match. Compared to the use of Ca(OH)2 based CO2 absorbent, inhaled agent waste is increased. The device is most likely to find its use integrated in closed loop systems.

Memsorb™, a novel CO2 removal device part II: in vivo performance with the Zeus IE®.

Memsorb™ (DMF Medical, Halifax, Canada) is a novel device based upon membrane oxygenator technology designed to eliminate CO2 from exhaled gas when using a circle anesthesia circuit. Exhaled gases pass through semipermeable hollow fibers and sweep gas flowing through these fibers creates a diffusion gradient for CO2 removal. In vivo Memsorb™ performance was tested during target-controlled closed-circuit anesthesia (TCCCA) with desflurane in O2/air using a Zeus IE® anesthesia workstation (Dräger, Lübeck, Germany). Clinical care protocols for using this novel device were guided by in vitro performance results from a prior study (submitted simultaneously). After IRB approval, written informed consent was obtained from 10 ASA PS I-III patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. TCCCA targets were 39% inspired O2 concentration (FIO2) and 5.0% end-expired desflurane concentration (FETdes). Minute ventilation (MV) was adjusted to maintain 4.5-6.0% FETCO2. The O2/air (40% O2) sweep flow into the Memsorb™ was manually adjusted in an attempt to keep inspired CO2 concentration (FICO2) ≤ 0.8%. The following data were collected: FIO2, FETdes, FICO2, FETCO2, MV, fresh gas flow (FGF, O2 and air), sweep flow, and cumulative desflurane usage (Vdes). Vdes of the Zeus IE®-Memsorb™ combination was compared with historical Vdes observed in a previous study when soda lime (DrägerSorb 800 +) was used. Results are reported as median and inter-quartiles. A combination of manually adjusting sweep flow (26 [21,27] L/min) and MV sufficed to maintain FICO2 ≤ 0.8% and FETCO2 ≤ 6.0%, except in one patient in whom the target Zeus IE® FGF had to be increased to 0.7 L/min for 6 min. FIO2 and FETdes were maintained close to their targets. Zeus IE® FGF after 5 min was 0 [0,0] mL/min. Average Vdes after 50 min was higher with Memsorb™ (20.3 mL) compared to historical soda lime canister data (12.3 mL). During target-controlled closed-circuit anesthesia in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, the Memsorb™ maintained FICO2 ≤ 0.8% and FETCO2 ≤ 6.0%, and FIO2 remained close to target. Modest amounts of desflurane were lost with the use of the Memsorb™. The need for adjustments of sweep flow, minute ventilation, and occasionally Zeus IE® FGF indicates that the Memsorb™ system should preferentially be integrated into an automated closed-loop system.

Reflection Versus Rebreathing for Administration of Sevoflurane During Minor Gynecological Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary anesthetic circle systems, when used at low fresh gas flows (FGF) to allow rebreathing of anesthetic, lack the ability for rapid dose titration. The small-scale anesthetic reflection device Anaesthetic Conserving Device (50mL Version; AnaConDa-S) permits administration of volatile anesthetics with high-flow ventilators. We compared washin, washout, and sevoflurane consumption using AnaConDa-S versus a circle system with low and minimal FGF. METHODS: Forty patients undergoing breast surgery were randomized to receive 0.5 minimal alveolar concentration (MAC) sevoflurane with AnaConDa-S (21 patients, reflection group) or with a circle system (low flow: FGF = 0.2 minute ventilation [V'E], 9 patients; or minimal flow: 0.1 V'E, 10 patients). In the reflection group, syringe pump boluses were given for priming and washin; to simulate an open system, the FGF of the anesthesia ventilator was set to 18 L·min-1 with the soda lime removed. In the other groups, the FGF was increased for washin (1 V'E for 8 minutes) and washout (3 V'E). For all patients, tidal volume was 7 mL·kg-1 and the respiratory rate adjusted to ensure normoventilation. Analgesia was attained with remifentanil 0.3 µg·kg-1·min-1. Sevoflurane consumption was compared between the reflection group and the low- and minimal-flow groups, respectively, using a post hoc test (Fisher Least Significant Difference). To compare washin and washout (half-life), the low- and minimal-flow groups were combined. RESULTS: Sevoflurane consumption was reduced in the reflection group (9.4 ± 2.0 vs 15.0 ± 3.5 [low flow, P < .001] vs 11.6 ± 2.3 mL·MAC h-1 [minimal flow, P = .02]); washin (33 ± 15 vs 49 ± 12 seconds, P = .001) and washout (28 ± 15 vs 55 ± 19 seconds, P < .001) times were also significantly shorter. CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical setting with short procedures, low anesthetic requirements, and low tidal volumes, AnaConDa-S decreased anesthetic consumption, washin, and washout times compared to a circle system.

The Effect of Low-Dose Intraoperative Ketamine on Closed-Loop-Controlled General Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop control of propofol-remifentanil anesthesia using the processed electroencephalography depth-of-hypnosis index provided by the NeuroSENSE monitor (WAVCNS) has been previously described. The purpose of this placebo-controlled study was to evaluate the performance (percentage time within ±10 units of the setpoint during the maintenance of anesthesia) of a closed-loop propofol-remifentanil controller during induction and maintenance of anesthesia in the presence of a low dose of ketamine. METHODS: Following ethical approval and informed consent, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status I-II patients aged 19-54 years, scheduled for elective orthopedic surgery requiring general anesthesia for >60 minutes duration, were enrolled in a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled, 2-group equivalence trial. Immediately before induction of anesthesia, participants in the ketamine group received a 0.25 mg·kg-1 bolus of intravenous ketamine over 60 seconds followed by a continuous 5 µg·kg-1·min-1 infusion for up to 45 minutes. Participants in the control group received an equivalent volume of normal saline. After the initial study drug bolus, closed-loop induction of anesthesia was initiated; propofol and remifentanil remained under closed-loop control until the anesthetic was tapered and turned off at the anesthesiologist's discretion. An equivalence range of ±8.99% was assumed for comparing controller performance. RESULTS: Sixty patients participated: 41 males, 54 ASA physical status I, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 29 [23, 38] years and weight of 82 [71, 93] kg. Complete data were available from 29 cases in the ketamine group and 27 in the control group. Percentage time within ±10 units of the WAVCNS setpoint was median [IQR] 86.6% [79.7, 90.2] in the ketamine group and 86.4% [76.5, 89.8] in the control group (median difference, 1.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.6 to 5.0). Mean propofol dose during maintenance of anesthesia for the ketamine group was higher than for the control group (median difference, 24.9 µg·kg-1·min-1; 95% CI, 6.5-43.1; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Because the 95% CI of the difference in controller performance lies entirely within the a priori equivalence range, we infer that this analgesic dose of ketamine did not alter controller performance. Further study is required to confirm the finding that mean propofol dosing was higher in the ketamine group, and to investigate the implication that this dose of ketamine may have affected the WAVCNS.

Carbon Dioxide Absorption During Inhalation Anesthesia: A Modern Practice.

CO2 absorbents were introduced into anesthesia practice in 1924 and are essential when using a circle system to minimize waste by reducing fresh gas flow to allow exhaled anesthetic agents to be rebreathed. For many years, absorbent formulations consisted of calcium hydroxide combined with strong bases like sodium and potassium hydroxide. When Sevoflurane and Desflurane were introduced, the potential for toxicity (compound A and CO, respectively) due to the interaction of these agents with absorbents became apparent. Studies demonstrated that strong bases added to calcium hydroxide were the cause of the toxicity, but that by eliminating potassium hydroxide and reducing the concentration of sodium hydroxide to <2%, compound A and CO production is no longer a concern. As a result, CO2 absorbents have been developed that contain little or no sodium hydroxide. These CO2 absorbent formulations can be used safely to minimize anesthetic waste by reducing fresh gas flow to approach closed-circuit conditions. Although absorbent formulations have been improved, practices persist that result in unnecessary waste of both anesthetic agents and absorbents. While CO2 absorbents may seem like a commodity item, differences in CO2 absorbent formulations can translate into significant performance differences, and the choice of absorbent should not be based on unit price alone. A modern practice of inhalation anesthesia utilizing a circle system to greatest effect requires reducing fresh gas flow to approach closed-circuit conditions, thoughtful selection of CO2 absorbent, and changing absorbents based on inspired CO2.

Postoperative Neurocognitive Disorders After Closed-Loop Versus Manual Target Controlled-Infusion of Propofol and Remifentanil in Patients Undergoing Elective Major Noncardiac Surgery: The Randomized Controlled Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction-Electroencephalographic-Guided Anesthetic Administration Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to investigate whether closed-loop compared to manual bispectral index (BIS)-guided target-controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil could decrease the incidence of postoperative neurocognitive disorders after elective major noncardiac surgery. METHODS: Patients aged >50 admitted for elective major noncardiac surgery were included in a single-blind randomized (ratio 2:1) trial. The anesthetic protocol was allocated by randomization into either closed-loop or manual BIS-guided propofol and remifentanil titration. The BIS target range was 40-60. All patients had cognitive assessment the day before surgery and within 72 hours after surgery using a battery of neuropsychological tests. The primary outcome was the rate of postoperative neurocognitive disorders. Postoperative neurocognitive disorders were defined as a decrease >20% from baseline on at least 3 scores. Intergroup comparison of the primary outcome was performed using the χ2 test. RESULTS: A total of 143 and 61 patients were included in the closed-loop and manual groups, respectively (age: 66 [8] vs 66 [9] years). The primary outcome was observed in 18 (13%) and 10 (16%) patients of the closed-loop and manual groups, respectively (relative risk [95% confidence interval {CI}], 0.77 [0.38-1.57], P = .47). Intraoperative propofol consumption was lower (4.7 [1.4] vs 5.7 [1.4] mg·kg-1·h-1, mean difference [MD] [95% CI], -0.73 [-0.98 to -0.48], P < .0001) and the proportion of time within the BIS target range higher (84 [77-89] vs 74 [54-81]%, MD [95% CI], 0.94 [0.67-1.21], P < .0001) in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: Closed-loop compared to manual BIS-guided total intravenous anesthesia provided a significant reduction in episodes of an excessive depth of anesthesia while decreasing intraoperative propofol requirement but no evidence for a reduction of the incidence of postoperative neurocognitive disorders after elective major noncardiac surgery was observed.

Environmental and economic impact of using increased fresh gas flow to reduce carbon dioxide absorbent consumption in the absence of inhalational anaesthetics.

BACKGROUND: Increasing fresh gas flow (FGF) to a circle breathing system reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbent consumption. We assessed the environmental and economic impacts of this trade-off between gas flow and absorbent consumption when no inhalational anaesthetic agent is used. METHODS: A test lung with fixed CO2 inflow was ventilated via a circle breathing system of an anaesthetic machine (Dräger Primus or GE Aisys CS2) using an FGF of 1, 2, 4, or 6 L min-1. We recorded the time to exhaustion of the CO2 absorbent canister, defined as when inspired partial pressure of CO2 exceeded 0.3 kPa. For each FGF, we calculated the economic costs and the environmental impact associated with the manufacture of the CO2 absorbent canister and the supply of medical air and oxygen. Environmental impact was measured in 100 yr global-warming potential, analysed using a life cycle assessment 'cradle to grave' approach. RESULTS: Increasing FGF from 1 to 6 L min-1 was associated with up to 93% reduction in the combined running cost with minimal net change to the 100 yr global-warming potential. Most of the reduction in cost occurred between 4 and 6 L min-1. Removing the CO2 absorbent from the circle system, and further increasing FGF to control CO2 rebreathing, afforded minimal further economic benefit, but more than doubled the global-warming potential. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of inhalational anaesthetic agents, increasing FGF to 6 L min-1 reduces running cost compared with lower FGFs, with minimal impact to the environment.

Estimating the Impact of Carbon Dioxide Absorbent Performance Differences on Absorbent Cost During Low-Flow Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Reducing fresh gas flow when using a circle anesthesia circuit is the most effective strategy for reducing both inhaled anesthetic vapor cost and waste. As fresh gas flow is reduced, the amount of exhaled gas rebreathed increases, but the utilization of carbon dioxide absorbent increases as well. Reducing fresh gas flow may not make economic sense if the increased cost of absorbent utilization exceeds the reduced cost of anesthetic vapor. The primary objective of this study was to determine the minimum fresh gas flow at which absorbent costs do not exceed vapor savings. Another objective is to provide a qualitative insight into the factors that influence absorbent performance as fresh gas flow is reduced. METHODS: A mathematical model was developed to compare the vapor savings with the cost of carbon dioxide absorbent as a function of fresh gas flow. Parameters of the model include patient size, unit cost of vapor and carbon dioxide absorbent, and absorbent capacity and efficiency. Boundaries for fresh gas flow were based on oxygen consumption or a closed-circuit condition at the low end and minute ventilation to approximate an open-circuit condition at the high end. Carbon dioxide production was estimated from oxygen consumption assuming a respiratory quotient of 0.8. RESULTS: For desflurane, the cost of carbon dioxide absorbent did not exceed vapor savings until fresh gas flow was almost equal to closed-circuit conditions. For sevoflurane, as fresh gas flow is reduced, absorbent costs increase more slowly than vapor costs decrease so that total costs are still minimized for a closed circuit. Due to the low cost of isoflurane, even with the most effective absorbent, the rate of absorbent costs increase more rapidly than vapor savings as fresh gas flow is reduced, so that an open circuit is least expensive. The total cost of vapor and absorbent is still lowest for isoflurane when compared with the other agents. CONCLUSIONS: The relative costs of anesthetic vapor and carbon dioxide absorbent as fresh gas flow is reduced are dependent on choice of anesthetic vapor and performance of the carbon dioxide absorbent. Absorbent performance is determined by the product selected and strategy for replacement. Clinicians can maximize the performance of absorbents by replacing them based on the appearance of inspired carbon dioxide rather than the indicator. Even though absorbent costs exceed vapor savings as fresh gas flow is reduced, isoflurane is still the lowest cost choice for the environmentally sound practice of closed-circuit anesthesia.

Influence of Remifentanil on the Control Performance of the Bispectral Index Controlled Bayesian-Based Closed-Loop System for Propofol Administration.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the clinical performance of a model-based, patient-individualized closed-loop (CL) control system for propofol administration using the bispectral index (BIS) as a controlled variable during the induction and maintenance of anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil and studied the influence of the targeted effect-site concentration of remifentanil (CeREMI) on its clinical performance. METHODS: In 163 patients, propofol was administered using a CL system (BIS target [BISTARGET] between 40 and 50). Initial CeREMI targets between 2 and 7.5 ng/mL were selected as deemed clinically required. Performance parameters during induction were the time required to initially cross the target BIS, the time required to reach the maximal drug effect after induction (TPEAK, BIS) and the corresponding BIS at this moment, and the time required to regain the target BIS at the end of induction. Performance during maintenance was defined as the percentage of case time with target BIS ± 10 from target and the amount of performance error (PE) between the observed and target BIS values and its derived median PE (MDPE) as a measure of control bias, median absolute PE (MDAPE) as a measure of control inaccuracy, divergence as a measure of the time-related trend of the measured BIS values relative to the target BIS values, and wobble as a measure of intrasubject variability in prediction error. The secondary end point was the hemodynamic stability of the patient during CL control. RESULTS: The applied CL system induced and maintained anesthesia within clinically accepted ranges. The percentage of case time [mean (standard deviation [SD]) across all study participants] with BIS ± 10 from the target was 82% (14%). The mean (SD) population MDPE and MDAPE were -6.6% (5.5%) and 11.2% (5.5%), respectively. A negative divergence [-0.001 (0.004)] and acceptable wobble [9.7% (4.0%)] were found. The correlation between the system PE and CeREMI was low and only influenced by a CeREMI <2.8 ng/mL. Hemodynamic stability stayed within the clinically acceptable range. CONCLUSIONS: The applied CL system for propofol administration has an acceptable performance in the CeREMI range of 2.8-7.5 ng/mL during the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. There was no evidence of a strong association between CeREM and the CL performance. This study also shows that when the CeREMI is <2.8 ng/mL, it might be more challenging to prevent arousal during propofol anesthesia.

Behavior of a dual closed-loop controller of propofol and remifentanil guided by the bispectral index for postoperative sedation of adult cardiac surgery patients: a preliminary open study.

A dual-loop controller permits the automated titration of propofol and remifentanil during anesthesia; it has never been used in intensive care after cardiac surgery. The goal of this preliminary study was to determine the efficacy of this controller to provide postoperative sedation in 19 adult cardiac surgery patients with a Bispectral Index target of 50. Results are presented as numbers (percentages) or medians [25th-75th percentiles]. The sedation period lasted 139 min [89-205] during which the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was at - 5 and the Behavioral Pain Scale score at three points for all patients and observation times but one (82 out of 83 assessments). Sedation time in the range 40-60 for the Bispectral Index was 87% [57-95]; one patient had a period of electrical silence defined as Suppression Ratio at least > 10% for more than 60 s. The time between the end of infusions and tracheal extubation was 84 min [63-129]. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was 0 [0-0], 0 [- 1 to 0], and 0 [0-0] respectively during the 3 h following extubation while the verbal numerical pain scores were 6 [4.5-7], 5 [4-6], and 2 [0-5]. Mean arterial pressure decreased during sedation requiring therapeutic interventions, mainly vascular filling in 15 (79%) patients. Automated sedation device was discontinued in two patients for hemodynamic instability. No patient had awareness of the postoperative sedation period. Dual closed-loop can provide postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery but the choice of the depth of sedation should take into account the risk of hypotension.

The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Propofol Requirements During Anesthesia Administered by Bispectral Index-Guided Closed-Loop Anesthesia Delivery System: A Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine, a selective α2-adrenergic agonist currently approved for continuous intensive care unit sedation, is being widely evaluated for its role as a potential anesthetic. The closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) is a method to automatically administer propofol total intravenous anesthesia using bi-spectral index (BIS) feedback and attain general anesthesia (GA) steady state with greater consistency. This study assessed whether dexmedetomidine is effective in further lowering the propofol requirements for total intravenous anesthesia facilitated by CLADS. METHODS: After ethics committee approval and written informed consent, 80 patients undergoing elective major laparoscopic/robotic surgery were randomly allocated to receive GA with propofol CLADS with or without the addition of dexmedetomidine. Quantitative reduction of propofol and quality of depth-of-anesthesia (primary objectives), intraoperative hemodynamics, incidence of postoperative adverse events (sedation, analgesia, nausea, and vomiting), and intraoperative awareness recall (secondary objectives) were analyzed. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant lowering of propofol requirement (by 15%) in the dexmedetomidine group for induction of anesthesia (dexmedetomidine group: mean ± standard deviation 0.91 ± 0.26 mg/kg; nondexmedetomidine group: 1.07 ± 0.23 mg/kg, mean difference: 0.163, 95% CI, 0.04-0.28; P = .01) and maintenance of GA (dexmedetomidine group: 3.25 ± 0.97 mg/kg/h; nondexmedetomidine group: 4.57 ± 1.21 mg/kg/h, mean difference: 1.32, 95% CI, 0.78-1.85; P < .001). The median performance error of BIS control, a measure of bias, was significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group (1% [-5.8%, 8%]) versus nondexmedetomidine group (8% [2%, 12%]; P = .002). No difference was found for anesthesia depth consistency parameters, including percentage of time BIS within ±10 of target (dexmedetomidine group: 79.5 [72.5, 85.3]; nondexmedetomidine group: 81 [68, 88]; P = .534), median absolute performance error (dexmedetomidine group: 12% [10%, 14%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 12% [10%, 14%]; P = .777), wobble (dexmedetomidine group: 10% [8%, 10%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 8% [6%, 10%]; P = .080), and global score (dexmedetomidine group: 25.2 [23.1, 35.8]; nondexmedetomidine group: 24.7 [20, 38.1]; P = .387). Similarly, there was no difference between the groups for percentage of time intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure remained within 20% of baseline. However, addition of dexmedetomidine to CLADS propofol increased the incidence of significant bradycardia (dexmedetomidine group: 14 [41.1%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 3 [9.1%]; P = .004), hypotension (dexmedetomidine group: 9 [26.5%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 2 [6.1%]; P = .045), and early postoperative sedation. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of dexmedetomidine to propofol administered by CLADS was associated with a consistent depth of anesthesia along with a significant decrease in propofol requirements, albeit with an incidence of hemodynamic depression and early postoperative sedation.

Feasibility of Fully Automated Hypnosis, Analgesia, and Fluid Management Using 2 Independent Closed-Loop Systems During Major Vascular Surgery: A Pilot Study.

Automated titration of intravenous anesthesia and analgesia using processed electroencephalography monitoring is no longer a novel concept. Closed-loop control of fluid administration to provide goal-directed fluid therapy has also been increasingly described. However, simultaneously combining 2 independent closed-loop systems together in patients undergoing major vascular surgery has not been previously detailed. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the clinical performance of fully automated hypnosis, analgesia, and fluid management using 2 independent closed-loop controllers in patients undergoing major vascular surgery before implementation within a larger study evaluating true patient outcomes.

Perioperative Considerations for Evolving Artificial Pancreas Devices.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus is a lifelong condition. It requires intensive patient involvement including frequent glucose measurements and subcutaneous insulin dosing to provide optimal glycemic control to decrease short- and long-term complications of diabetes mellitus without causing hypoglycemia. Variations in insulin pharmacokinetics and responsiveness over time in addition to illness, stress, and a myriad of other factors make ideal glucose control a challenge. Control-to-range and control-to-target artificial pancreas devices (closed-loop artificial pancreas devices [C-APDs]) consist of a continuous glucose monitor, response algorithm, and insulin delivery device that work together to automate much of the glycemic management for an individual while continually adjusting insulin dosing toward a glycemic target. In this way, a C-APD can improve glycemic control and decrease the rate of hypoglycemia. The MiniMed 670G (Medtronic, Fridley, MN) system is currently the only Food and Drug Administration-cleared C-APD in the United States. In this system, insulin delivery is continually adjusted to a glucose concentration, and the patient inputs meal-time information to modify insulin delivery as needed. Data thus far suggest improved glycemic control and decreased hypoglycemic events using the system, with decreased need for patient self-management. Thus, the anticipated use of these devices is likely to increase dramatically over time. There are limited case reports of safe intraoperative use of C-APDs, but the Food and Drug Administration has not cleared any device for such use. Nonetheless, C-APDs may offer an opportunity to improve patient safety and outcomes through enhanced intraoperative glycemic control. Anesthesiologists should become familiar with C-APD technology to help develop safe and effective protocols for their intraoperative use. We provide an overview of C-APDs and propose an introductory strategy for intraoperative study of these devices.

A novel cause of rebreathing carbon dioxide related to removed CLIC-seal on the Dräger Apollo© anesthesia machine.

We present a case report involving two sequential, surgically uneventful, laparoscopic cholecystectomies using the same anesthesia machine (Drager Apollo©) for which the level of inspired carbon dioxide was noted to be elevated following various diagnostic interventions including replacing the sodalime, increasing fresh gas flows, and a full inspection of equipment for malfunction. Eventually it was discovered that a rubber ring seal connecting the Dragersorb CLIC system© to the sodalime canister was inadvertently removed during the initial canister exchange resulting in an apparent bypassing of the absorbent and thus an inability of the exhaled gas to contact the sodalime. To our knowledge this is the first such description of this potential cause of elevated inspired carbon dioxide and should warrant consideration when other conventional interventions have failed.

The Anesthesia Workstation: Quo Vadis?

Ensuring adequate ventilation and oxygenation and delivering inhaled anesthetic agent to the patient remain core responsibilities of the anesthesia provider during general anesthesia. Because of the emphasis placed on physiology, pharmacology, clinical sciences, and administrative duties, the stellar anesthesia workstation technology may be underutilized by the anesthesia community. Target-controlled O2 and agent delivery and automated end-expired CO2 control have entered the clinical arena, with only cost, luddism, and administrative hurdles preventing their more widespread use. This narrative review will explain technological aspects of existing and recently introduced anesthesia workstations. Concepts rather than particular anesthesia machines will be addressed, but examples will mostly pertain to the more recently introduced workstations. The anesthesia workstation consists of a ventilator, a carrier gas and agent delivery system, a scavenging system, and monitors. Mainly, the circle breathing circuit configuration, ventilator, and carrier gas and agent delivery technology are discussed. Occasionally, technical details are provided to give the reader a taste of the modern technology.

Regulatory Considerations for Physiological Closed-Loop Controlled Medical Devices Used for Automated Critical Care: Food and Drug Administration Workshop Discussion Topics.

Part of the mission of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the US Food and Drug Administration is to facilitate medical device innovation. Therefore, CDRH plays an important role in helping its stakeholders such as manufacturers, health care professionals, patients, patient advocates, academia, and other government agencies navigate the regulatory landscape for medical devices. This is particularly important for innovative physiological closed-loop controlled (PCLC) devices used in critical care environments, such as intensive care units, emergency settings, and battlefield environments. CDRH's current working definition of a PCLC medical device is a medical device that incorporates physiological sensor(s) for automatic manipulation of a physiological variable through actuation of therapy that is conventionally made by a clinician. These emerging devices enable automatic therapy delivery and may have the potential to revolutionize the standard of care by ensuring adequate and timely therapy delivery with improved performance in high workload and high-stress environments. For emergency response and military applications, automatic PCLC devices may play an important role in reducing cognitive overload, minimizing human error, and enhancing medical care during surge scenarios (ie, events that exceed the capability of the normal medical infrastructure). CDRH held an open public workshop on October 13 and 14, 2015 with the aim of fostering an open discussion on design, implementation, and evaluation considerations associated with PCLC devices used in critical care environments. CDRH is currently developing regulatory recommendations and guidelines that will facilitate innovation for PCLC devices. This article highlights the contents of the white paper that was central to the workshop and focuses on the ensuing discussions regarding the engineering, clinical, and human factors considerations.

High volatile anaesthetic conservation with a digital in-line vaporizer and a reflector.

BACKGROUND: A volatile anaesthetic (VA) reflector can reduce VA consumption (VAC) at the cost of fine control of its delivery and CO2 accumulation. A digital in-line vaporizer and a second CO2 absorber circumvent both of these limitations. We hypothesized that the combination of a VA reflector with an in-line vaporizer would yield substantial VA conservation, independent of fresh gas flow (FGF) in a circle circuit, and provide fine control of inspired VA concentrations. METHOD: Prospective observational study on six Yorkshire pigs. A secondary anaesthetic circuit consisting of a Y-piece with 2 one-way valves, an in-line vaporizer and a CO2 absorber in the inspiratory limb was connected to the patient's side of the VA reflector. The other side was connected to the Y-piece of a circle anaesthetic circuit. In six pigs, an inspired concentration of sevoflurane of 2.5% was maintained by the in-line vaporizer. We measured VAC at FGF of 1, 4 and 10 l/min. RESULTS: With the secondary circuit, VAC was 55% less than with the circle system alone at FGF 1 l/min, and independent of FGF over the range of 1-10 l/min. Insertion of a CO2 absorber in the secondary circuit reduced Pet CO2 by 1.3-2.0 kpa (10-15 mmHg). CONCLUSION: A secondary circuit with reflector and in-line vaporizer provides highly efficient anaesthetic delivery, independent of FGF. A second CO2 absorber was necessary to scavenge the CO2 reflected by the anaesthetic reflector. This secondary circuit may turn any open circuit ventilator into an anaesthetic delivery unit.