End-tidal control vs. manually controlled minimal-flow anesthesia: a prospective comparative trial.

BACKGROUND

To ensure safe general anesthesia, manually controlled anesthesia requires constant monitoring and numerous manual adjustments of the gas dosage, especially for low- and minimal-flow anesthesia. Oxygen flow-rate and administration of volatile anesthetics can also be controlled automatically by anesthesia machines using the end-tidal control technique, which ensures constant end-tidal concentrations of oxygen and anesthetic gas via feedback and continuous adjustment mechanisms. We investigated the hypothesis that end-tidal control is superior to manually controlled minimal-flow anesthesia (0.5 l/min).

METHODS

In this prospective trial, we included 64 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. We analyzed the precision of maintenance of the sevoflurane concentration (1.2-1.4%) and expiratory oxygen (35-40%) and the number of necessary adjustments.

RESULTS

Target-concentrations of sevoflurane and oxygen were maintained at more stable levels with the use of end-tidal control (during the first 15 min 28% vs. 51% and from 15 to 60 min 1% vs. 19% deviation from sevoflurane target, P < 0.0001; 45% vs. 86% and 5% vs. 15% deviation from O target, P < 0.01, respectively), while manual controlled minimal-flow anesthesia required more interventions to maintain the defined target ranges of sevoflurane (8, IQR 6-12) and end-tidal oxygen (5, IQR 3-6). The target-concentrations were reached earlier with the use of end-tidal compared with manual controlled minimal-flow anesthesia but required slightly greater use of anesthetic agents (6.9 vs. 6.0 ml/h).

CONCLUSIONS

End-tidal control is a superior technique for setting and maintaining oxygen and anesthetic gas concentrations in a stable and rapid manner compared with manual control. Consequently, end-tidal control can effectively support the anesthetist.