Innovative in vivo rat model for global cerebral hypoxia: a new approach to investigate therapeutic and preventive drugs.

Introduction: Severe acute global cerebral hypoxia can lead to significant disability in humans. Although different animal models have been described to study hypoxia, there is no endogenous model that considers hypoxia and its effect on the brain as an independent factor. Thus, we developed a minimally invasive rat model, which is based on the non-depolarizing muscle blocking agent rocuronium in anesthetized animals. This drug causes respiratory insufficiency by paralysis of the striated muscles. Methods: In this study, 14 rats underwent 12 min of hypoxemia with an oxygen saturation of approximately 60% measured by pulse oximetry; thereafter, animals obtained sugammadex to antagonize rocuronium immediately. Results: Compared to controls (14 rats, anesthesia only), hypoxic animals demonstrated significant morphological alterations in the hippocampus (cell decrease in the CA 1 region) and the cerebellum (Purkinje cell decrease), as well as significant changes in hypoxia markers in blood (Hif2α, Il1ß, Tgf1ß, Tnfα, S100b, cspg2, neuron-specific enolase), hippocampus (Il1ß, Tnfα, S100b, cspg2, NSE), and cerebellum (Hif1α, Tnfα, S100b, cspg2, NSE). Effects were more pronounced in females than in males. Discussion: Consequently, this model is suitable to induce hypoxemia with consecutive global cerebral hypoxia. As significant morphological and biochemical changes were proven, it can be used to investigate therapeutic and preventive drugs for global cerebral hypoxia.

Infection Prevention and the Protective Effects of Unidirectional Displacement Flow Ventilation in the Turbulent Spaces of the Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Unidirectional displacement flow (UDF) ventilation systems in operating rooms are characterized by a uniformity of velocity ≥80% and protect patients and operating room personnel against exposure to hazardous substances. However, the air below the surgical lights and in the surrounding zone is turbulent, which impairs the ventilation system's effect. AIM: We first used the recovery time (RT) as specified in International Organization for Standardization 14644 to determine the particle reduction capacity in the turbulent spaces of an operating room with a UDF system. METHODS: The uniformity of velocity was analyzed by comfort-level probe grid measurements in the protected area below a hemispherical closed-shaped and a semi-open column-shaped surgical light (tilt angles: 0°/15°/30°) and in the surrounding zone of a research operating room. Thereafter, RTs were calculated. RESULTS: At a supply air volume of 10,500 m3/h, the velocity, reported as average uniformity ± standard deviation, was uniform in the protected area without lights (95.8% ± 1.7%), but locally turbulent below the hemispherical closed-shaped (69.3% ± 14.6%), the semi-open column-shaped light (66.9% ± 10.9%), and in the surrounding zone (51.5% ± 17.6%). The RTs ranged between 1.1 and 1.7 min below the lights and 3.5 ± 0.28 min in the surrounding zone and depended exponentially on the volume flow rate. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to an RT of ≤20 min as required for operating rooms with mixed dilution flow, particles here were eliminated 12-18 times more quickly from below the surgical lights and 5.7 times from the surrounding zone. Thus, the effect of the lights was negligible and the UDF's retained its strong protective effect.

Anesthetic gas consumption with target-controlled administration versus a semi-closed circle system with automatic end-tidal concentration control in an artificial lung model.

The use of volatile anesthetics as sedatives in the intensive care unit is relevant to the patient's outcome. We compared anesthetic gas consumption of the conventional semi-closed Aisys CSTM with the MIRUSTM system, which is the first anesthetic gas reflector system that can administer desflurane in addition to isoflurane and sevoflurane. We connected an artificial lung model to either a MIRUSTM system and a Puritan BennettTM 840 ventilator or an Aisys CSTM anesthesia machine. We found that consumption of 0.5% isoflurane, which corresponds to the target concentration 0.5 MAC, was averaged to 2 mL/h in the MIRUSTM system, which is identical to the Aisys CSTM at a fresh gas flow (FGF) of 1.0 L/min. MIRUSTM consumption of 1% sevoflurane was averaged to 10 mL/h, which corresponds to 8.4 mL/h at FGF 2.5 L/min. The MIRUSTM system consumed 3% or 4% desflurane at an average of 13.0 mL/h or 21.3 mL/h, which is between the consumption at 1.0 L/min and 2.5 L/min FGF. Thus, the MIRUSTM system can effectively deliver volatile anesthetics in clinically relevant concentrations in a similar rate as a conventional circular breathing system at FGFs between 1.0 L/min and 2.5 L/min.

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.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and inhaled sedation in coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe complication of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and the primary cause of death in the current pandemic. Critically ill patients often undergo extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy as the last resort over an extended period. ECMO therapy requires sedation of the patient, which is usually achieved by intravenous administration of sedatives. The shortage of intravenous sedative drugs due to the ongoing pandemic, and attempts to improve treatment outcome for COVID-19 patients, drove the application of inhaled sedation as a promising alternative for sedation during ECMO therapy. Administration of volatile anesthetics requires an appropriate delivery. Commercially available ones are the anesthetic gas reflection systems AnaConDa® and MIRUSTM, and each should be combined with a gas scavenging system. In this review, we describe respiratory management in COVID-19 patients and the procedures for inhaled sedation during ECMO therapy of COVID-19 related ARDS. We focus particularly on the technical details of administration of volatile anesthetics. Furthermore, we describe the advantages of inhaled sedation and volatile anesthetics, and we discuss the limitations as well as the requirements for safe application in the clinical setting.

Pain in children undergoing tonsillotomy with alternating ibuprofen and paracetamol - a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal pain therapy for children undergoing tonsillotomy remains unknown. Our aim was to evaluate a standard pain therapy including the alternating application of ibuprofen and paracetamol. METHODS: Pain intensity of 81 in-patients after tonsillotomy aged 2-12 years was evaluated three times daily (mean observation 3.85 days) using the Children's and Infants' Postoperative Pain Scale (CHIPPS) in children <5 years, or with the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) in older children. Parents completed the Parents' Postoperative Pain Measure (PPPM-D) in addition. Exceeding the cut-off value in one of the scores implied the indication for an opioid rescue medication (RM). Endpoints were number of children with indication for the RM, course of pain, concordance between pain scales, and adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 45.7% of children needed the RM either in the recovery room or on the ward. The rate of children having an indication for RM on the ward was 30.9%. The highest proportion of affected children was identified on the day of surgery (32.1%). Most indications were detected with the PPPM-D only. A comparison with an earlier study showed less affected children compared to ibuprofen monotherapy on the day of surgery and the first postoperative day. Eleven children (13.6%) developed fever. CONCLUSION: Although our pain therapy concept was effective from postoperative day 1 onwards, it needs improvement for the day of surgery. The overall concordance between the PPPM-D and CHIPPS or FPS-R was low. Fever might be a confounder for the pain intensity measurement with the PPPM-D.

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.

Incidence of infection in non-tunnelled thoracic epidural catheters after major abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia is beneficial after major abdominal surgery, though side-effects and complications are rare but potentially devastating. The incidence of catheter-related infection is approximately 5.5%. Several guidelines have been recommended to prevent complications during thoracic epidural catheterization. Tunnelling is often recommended to reduce the incidence of infections and dislocations. METHODS: A retrospective, single-centre analysis of our acute pain service database was performed between 2010 and 2018. The hygiene measures of the German Society of Anaesthesiology have been incorporated in our standard operating protocol since 2009. The procedure remained constant, but the skin disinfectant was changed from propan-2-ol to propan-2-ol with octenidine in 2014. Tunnelling of catheters was not performed. We analysed the incidence of catheter-related infections (primary endpoint) and effect of the used disinfectant (secondary endpoint). RESULTS: A total of 2755 patients underwent elective major abdominal surgery with thoracic epidural catheterization. Sixteen patients (0.6%) showed symptoms of mild catheter-related infection. Moderate or severe infections were not observed in any patient. The type of disinfectant did not show any significant effect on the incidence of infection. CONCLUSION: The incidence of catheter-related infections was low, and only mild signs of infection were observed. Non-tunnelling could be an alternative to tunnelling, especially if hygiene protocols are followed, and the duration of catheter use is short. A comprehensive database and regular examinations by trained staff are essential for early detection of abnormalities and immediate removal of the catheter, if required.

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.

Improvement in pre-operative risk assessment in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery by a process-oriented score: A prospective single-centre study.

BACKGROUND: Pre-operative risk assessment is important to quantify the patient's risks of morbidity and mortality, but its quality differs. We created a process-oriented score (PRO-score) for risk evaluation of adults as a three-stage warning score checklist with concrete guidance. It contains the contents of current guidelines and the assessment of vital signs. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether the PRO-score is suitable to detect 'red flag' warning signs not only in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status (PS) 3 or 4 patients but also in ASA-PS 1 or 2 patients. Resulting medical, therapeutic or structural consequences were recorded. DESIGN: Prospective single-centre study. SETTING: The study was performed in a German university hospital between November 2015 and December 2018. PATIENTS: We included 54 455 adult patients undergoing a pre-operative risk assessment for general or regional anaesthesia and elective noncardiac surgery. RESULTS: In all, 388 patients presented 'red flag' warning signs in the PRO-score during risk assessment; 85 (21.9%) were labelled ASA-PS 1 or 2, 244 (62.9%) ASA-PS 3 and 59 (15.2%) ASA-PS 4. Additional examinations were performed in 179 patients and technical tests in 175 patients (ASA-PS 1 or 2: 53 and 63 patients, respectively). After re-evaluation of the peri-operative risk in an interdisciplinary conference, surgery was cancelled in 44 patients (ASA-PS 1 and 2, 17 patients) or performed under local anaesthesia in 15 patients (ASA-PS 1 and 2, 2 patients). A downgrading to PRO-score 2 was reached in 168 patients after therapeutic interventions (ASA-PS 1 and 2, 54 patients). Undergoing surgery despite 'red flag' events resulted in major complications in 34 patients, and 16 patients died (ASA-PS 1 or 2: 7 and 3 patients, respectively). CONCLUSION: The PRO-score detected warning signs in 'healthy' ASA-PS 1 or 2 and in ASA-PS 3 or 4 patients. Furthermore, it influenced the management of these patients, and thus improved the process quality of risk assessment. The physical examination should include the assessment of vital signs.

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.

Use of MIRUS™ for MAC-driven application of isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane in postoperative ICU patients: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The MIRUS™ (TIM, Koblenz, Germany) is an electronical gas delivery system, which offers an automated MAC (minimal alveolar concentration)-driven application of isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane, and can be used for sedation in the intensive care unit. We investigated its consumption of volatile anesthetics at 0.5 MAC (primary endpoint) and the corresponding costs. Secondary endpoints were the technical feasibility to reach and control the MAC automatically, the depth of sedation at 0.5 MAC, and awakening times. Mechanically ventilated and sedated patients after major surgery were enrolled. Upon arrival in the intensive care unit, patients obtained intravenous propofol sedation for at least 1 h to collect ventilation and blood gas parameters, before they were switched to inhalational sedation using MIRUS™ with isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane. After a minimum of 2 h, inhalational sedation was stopped, and awakening times were recorded. A multivariate electroencephalogram and the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) were used to assess the depth of sedation. Vital signs, ventilation parameters, gas consumption, MAC, and expiratory gas concentrations were continuously recorded. RESULTS: Thirty patients obtained inhalational sedation for 18:08 [14:46-21:34] [median 1st-3rd quartiles] hours. The MAC was 0.58 [0.50-0.64], resulting in a Narcotrend Index of 37.1 [30.9-42.4] and a RASS of - 3.0 [- 4.0 to (- 3.0)]. The median gas consumption was significantly lowest for isoflurane ([ml h-1]: isoflurane: 3.97 [3.61-5.70]; sevoflurane: 8.91 [6.32-13.76]; and desflurane: 25.88 [20.38-30.82]; p < 0.001). This corresponds to average costs of 0.39 € h-1 for isoflurane, 2.14 € h-1 for sevoflurane, and 7.54 € h-1 for desflurane. Awakening times (eye opening [min]: isoflurane: 9:48 [4:15-20:18]; sevoflurane: 3:45 [0:30-6:30]; desflurane: 2:00 [1:00-6:30]; p = 0.043) and time to extubation ([min]: isoflurane: 10:10 [8:00-20:30]; sevoflurane: 7:30 [4:37-14:22]; desflurane: 3:00 [3:00-6:00]; p = 0.007) were significantly shortest for desflurane. CONCLUSIONS: A target-controlled, MAC-driven automated application of volatile anesthetics is technically feasible and enables an adequate depth of sedation. Gas consumption was highest for desflurane, which is also the most expensive volatile anesthetic. Although awakening times were shortest, the actual time saving of a few minutes might be negligible for most patients in the intensive care unit. Thus, using desflurane seems not rational from an economic perspective. Trial registration Clinical Trials Registry (ref.: NCT03860129). Registered 24 September 2018-Retrospectively registered.

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.

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.

Comparison of perioperative strategies in ICD patients: The perioperative ICD management study (PIM study).

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the frequency of surgery on these patients are steadily on the rise. Guidelines recommend preoperative ICD reprogramming, although this is sometimes difficult in clinical practice. Placing a magnet on the ICD is a practical alternative and even no inactivation is possible in selected cases. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we compared different perioperative ICD management strategies depending on the location of the surgery and the type of electrocautery used. Patients undergoing surgery above the umbilicus with monopolar electrocautery had their ICD therapy inactivated by reprogramming. When surgery below the navel or surgery above the navel with bipolar electrocautery was completed, ICD inactivation was performed using a magnet. No inactivation was performed on patients undergoing lower extremity surgery with bipolar electrocautery. Only ICD patients who were not pacemaker dependent were enrolled. After surgery, the ICDs were assessed regarding documented arrhythmias and parameters. RESULTS: Out of 101 patients included in this study, the ICD was preoperatively reprogrammed in 42 patients (41.6%), a magnet was used on 45 patients (44.5%), and ICDs were not deactivated at all in 14 patients (13.9%). No intraoperative electromagnetic interference was detected. Postoperative ICD analysis demonstrated no changes of preset parameters. CONCLUSIONS: All three tested ICD management strategies were proved safe in this study. Keeping the location of surgery and the type of electrocautery in mind, an intraoperative magnet or even no ICD deactivation at all could be feasible alternatives in surgery on patients with ICDs.

Efficiencies and noise levels of portable surgical smoke evacuation systems.

Surgical smoke resulting from electrocauterization is a health risk for operating room personnel. The U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends the use of local exhaust ventilation such as a portable smoke evacuation system to reduce surgical smoke, but its efficiency has never been assessed under experimental conditions. In this study, particle filtration efficiencies of five commercially available smoke evacuation systems were investigated in a model operating room. Two cutting angles, the devices' suction capacities, three unidirectional displacement flow rates, and the noise exposures were considered. Results demonstrated that portable smoke evacuation systems reduce surgical smoke up to 99% under optimal conditions. A cutting angle of 45°, the device's maximum suction capacity, and a unidirectional displacement flow rate of 10,500 m³/hr were advantageous. Sound levels ranged between 51-69 dBA and exceeded recommended threshold limits, if used with medium or maximum suction capacity. Hence, portable smoke evacuation systems are beneficial and are recommended. However, a combination with general unidirectional room ventilation and a strict limitation of the use of electrocauterization is strongly advised.

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 impact of the anesthetic conserving device on occupational exposure to isoflurane among intensive care healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Use of anesthetic conserving devices (ACD) for inhalational isoflurane sedation in Intensive Care Units (ICU) has grown in recent years, and healthcare professionals are concerned about isoflurane pollution and exposure-related health risks. Real-time measurements to determine isoflurane exposure in ICU personnel during short-term patient care procedures and ACD handling have not yet been performed. METHODS: Isoflurane concentrations in the breathing zones of ICU staff (25 cm around the nose and mouth) were measured, by photoacoustic gas monitoring, during daily practice including tracheal suctioning, oral hygiene, body care, and patient positioning. Isoflurane pollution was further determined during ACD replacement, syringe filling, and after isoflurane spillages. RESULTS: The average mean isoflurane concentration 25 cm above patients' tracheostoma was 0.3 ppm. Mean (cmean) and maximum (cmax) isoflurane exposure in personnel's breathing zones during patient care ranged from 0.4 to 1.9 ppm and 0.7 to 6.6 ppm, respectively. Isoflurane exposure during ACD replacement was cmean 0.5 to 17.4 ppm and cmax 0.8 to 114.3 ppm. Isoflurane concentrations during ACD syringe filling ranged from 2.4 to 9.1 ppm. The maximum isoflurane concentrations after spillage were dose-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ACDs and patient physical manipulation are accompanied by isoflurane pollution. Baseline concentrations did not exceed long-term exposure limits, but short-term limits were occasionally exceeded during patient care procedures and ACD handling. Spillages should be avoided, especially when air-conditioning and scavenging systems are unavailable.