Baum J, Sachs G
Abteilung für Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin, Krankenhaus St. Elisabeth-Stift, Damme.
Anasth Intensivther Notfallmed. 1990 Feb;25(1):72-8.
The majority of modern anaesthetic machines is designed for the rebreathing method. But frequently high fresh gas flows are employed, thus minimising the rebreathing fraction of expiratory gases. However, only by reducing the fresh gas flow substantially, the advantages of the rebreathing technique can be obtained. To evaluate the practicability of flow reduction, minimal flow anaesthesia was carried out with four different anaesthetic machines: AV 1 (Drägerwerk AG, Lübeck), ELSA (Gambro Engström AB, Bromma, Sweden), SULLA 808 V (Drägerwerk AG, Lübeck) und VIVOLEC (Hoyer Medizintechnik, Bremen). Fresh gas flow was reduced to 0.5 l/min after an initial phase of 15-20 min, during which the fresh gas flow was kept at a high level of 4.4 l/min. The minute volumes before and after fresh gas flow reduction were compared. The minute volume decreased markedly and significantly in the SULLA 808 group, whereas it remained nearly unchanged in the AV 1, the ELSA, and the VIVOLEC groups. The differences result from different modes of fresh gas delivery into the breathing circuit. If anaesthetic apparatus that maintain their tidal volume with different fresh gas flow rates are employed, rebreathing systems may be used judiciously by changing the fresh gas flow according to the individual uptake or any particular clinical requirement.
大多数现代麻醉机是为再呼吸法设计的。但经常采用高新鲜气流速,从而使呼出气体的再呼吸分数降至最低。然而,只有大幅降低新鲜气流速,才能获得再呼吸技术的优势。为评估降低流速的可行性,使用四台不同的麻醉机进行了最低流量麻醉:AV 1(德国吕贝克德尔格公司)、ELSA(瑞典布罗玛甘布罗恩斯特龙公司)、SULLA 808 V(德国吕贝克德尔格公司)和VIVOLEC(德国不来梅霍耶医疗技术公司)。在最初15 - 20分钟的高新鲜气流速阶段(保持在4.4升/分钟的高水平)后,将新鲜气流速降至0.5升/分钟。比较了新鲜气流速降低前后的分钟通气量。SULLA 808组的分钟通气量显著下降,而AV 1组、ELSA组和VIVOLEC组的分钟通气量几乎保持不变。这些差异源于向呼吸回路输送新鲜气体的不同方式。如果使用能以不同新鲜气流速维持潮气量的麻醉设备,可根据个体摄取量或任何特定临床需求改变新鲜气流速,明智地使用再呼吸系统。