Maurits Hoffmann, Jennifer Jouwena, Andre M De Wolf, Rik Carette, Rinaldo S H Lauwers, Jan F A Hendrickx
{"title":"In Vitro Performance of a Charcoal-capturing Device with Desflurane.","authors":"Maurits Hoffmann, Jennifer Jouwena, Andre M De Wolf, Rik Carette, Rinaldo S H Lauwers, Jan F A Hendrickx","doi":"10.1097/ALN.0000000000005445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of capturing devices may become required for the continued use desflurane. This study tested the percentage of desflurane captured by a charcoal filter (CONTRAfluran; Zeosys GmbH, Germany)-workstation (Aisys; GE Healthcare, USA) combination in vitro .</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Desflurane in oxygen/air was administered via an Aisys workstation into a 2-l test lung that was insufflated with carbon dioxide (160 ml/min). First, to confirm that all vaporized desflurane reached the capturing device, the amount of desflurane collected in a Douglas bag attached to the machine exhaust was compared to the vaporized amount during 15-min runs with the following fresh gas flow and vaporizer setting combinations: 0.3 l/min and 8%, 0.5 l/min and 8%, 1 l/min and 6%, 2 l/min and 6%, 3 l/min and 6%, 4 l/min and 6%, 5 l/min and 6%, and 6 l/min and 6%. Next, to determine the effect of carbon dioxide, the capturing device weight gain was measured with the same fresh gas flow run for longer than 1 h but without desflurane. Finally, the ratio of the capturing device weight gain/vaporizer weight loss (which equals the performance, expressed as a percentage) was determined for the same 15-min runs with the desflurane vaporizer settings described above. All experiments were arbitrarily repeated five times.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The amount of vaporized desflurane did not differ from the amount collected in the Douglas bag. When carbon dioxide, oxygen, and air were delivered without desflurane, the capturing device lost a relatively small amount of weight (less than 5 g), especially with fresh gas flow less than or equal to 1 l/min. Finally, performance with 0.3, 0.5 to 2, and 3 to 6 l/min fresh gas flow was 103, 100, and 95 to 93%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CONTRAfluran charcoal filter in vitro performance for desflurane in oxygen/air combined with the Aisys workstation ranged from 93 to 103% with fresh gas flow of 0.3 to 6 l/min with vaporizer settings that reflect clinical conditions. Defining the place of charcoal filters in clinical practice requires full life-cycle analysis of both the charcoal and inhaled agent.</p>","PeriodicalId":7970,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"1038-1046"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000005445","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The use of capturing devices may become required for the continued use desflurane. This study tested the percentage of desflurane captured by a charcoal filter (CONTRAfluran; Zeosys GmbH, Germany)-workstation (Aisys; GE Healthcare, USA) combination in vitro .
Methods: Desflurane in oxygen/air was administered via an Aisys workstation into a 2-l test lung that was insufflated with carbon dioxide (160 ml/min). First, to confirm that all vaporized desflurane reached the capturing device, the amount of desflurane collected in a Douglas bag attached to the machine exhaust was compared to the vaporized amount during 15-min runs with the following fresh gas flow and vaporizer setting combinations: 0.3 l/min and 8%, 0.5 l/min and 8%, 1 l/min and 6%, 2 l/min and 6%, 3 l/min and 6%, 4 l/min and 6%, 5 l/min and 6%, and 6 l/min and 6%. Next, to determine the effect of carbon dioxide, the capturing device weight gain was measured with the same fresh gas flow run for longer than 1 h but without desflurane. Finally, the ratio of the capturing device weight gain/vaporizer weight loss (which equals the performance, expressed as a percentage) was determined for the same 15-min runs with the desflurane vaporizer settings described above. All experiments were arbitrarily repeated five times.
Results: The amount of vaporized desflurane did not differ from the amount collected in the Douglas bag. When carbon dioxide, oxygen, and air were delivered without desflurane, the capturing device lost a relatively small amount of weight (less than 5 g), especially with fresh gas flow less than or equal to 1 l/min. Finally, performance with 0.3, 0.5 to 2, and 3 to 6 l/min fresh gas flow was 103, 100, and 95 to 93%, respectively.
Conclusions: CONTRAfluran charcoal filter in vitro performance for desflurane in oxygen/air combined with the Aisys workstation ranged from 93 to 103% with fresh gas flow of 0.3 to 6 l/min with vaporizer settings that reflect clinical conditions. Defining the place of charcoal filters in clinical practice requires full life-cycle analysis of both the charcoal and inhaled agent.
背景:为了继续使用地氟醚,可能需要使用捕集装置。我们测试了活性炭过滤器(CONTRAfluran)-工作站(Aisys)组合在体外捕获地氟醚的百分比。方法:通过Aisys工作站将O2/air中的地氟醚注入2 L CO2 (160 mL/min)的试验肺中。首先,为了确认所有汽化的地氟醚都到达了捕获装置,将附着在机器排气上的道格拉斯袋中收集的地氟醚的量与在以下新鲜气体流量(FGF)//汽化器设置组合(L/min // %): 0.3//8、0.5//8、1//6、2//6、3//6、4//6、5//6和6//6下运行15分钟的汽化量进行比较。接下来,为了确定CO2的影响,在相同的FGF运行超过1小时但不含地氟醚的情况下,测量捕获装置的重量增加。最后,在上述地氟醚汽化器设置下,确定同样运行15分钟的捕获装置重量增加/汽化器重量损失的比率(=性能,以%表示)。所有实验都任意重复五次。结果:地氟醚的汽化量与道格拉斯袋中收集的量无差异。当CO2、O2和空气中不含地氟醚时,捕集装置的重量损失相对较小(结论:CONTRAfluran木炭过滤器在O2/空气中与Aisys工作站联合使用时,对地氟醚的体外捕集性能为93- 103%,FGF为0.3至3-6 L/min,蒸发器设置反映临床情况。确定木炭过滤器在临床实践中的地位需要对木炭和吸入剂进行全生命周期分析。
期刊介绍:
With its establishment in 1940, Anesthesiology has emerged as a prominent leader in the field of anesthesiology, encompassing perioperative, critical care, and pain medicine. As the esteemed journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Anesthesiology operates independently with full editorial freedom. Its distinguished Editorial Board, comprising renowned professionals from across the globe, drives the advancement of the specialty by presenting innovative research through immediate open access to select articles and granting free access to all published articles after a six-month period. Furthermore, Anesthesiology actively promotes groundbreaking studies through an influential press release program. The journal's unwavering commitment lies in the dissemination of exemplary work that enhances clinical practice and revolutionizes the practice of medicine within our discipline.