Biro P
Institut für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsspital Zürich.
Anaesthesist. 1993 Sep;42(9):638-43.
A marked decrease in both personal and environmental pollution with anaesthetic gases as well as in costs is possible with anaesthesia machines which can be run with a low fresh gas flow (FGF) [9]. Low-flow anaesthesia can be performed with appropriately equipped circle systems, although strongly reduced FGF minimises the control of depth of anaesthesia and gas concentrations. Microprocessor-controlled feedback systems allow the utilisation of closed-circuit systems throughout the whole duration of anaesthesia, maintaining full anaesthetic control [3,5]. The aim of this investigation was to determine the costs resulting from gas consumption and clinical suitability of the recently marketed PhysioFlex anaesthesia machine. METHODS. We used a PhysioFlex (Physio, Hoofdorpp, Netherlands) in a series of 15 routine otorhinolaryngological interventions. After induction with thiopentone and suxamethonium, general anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide in 30% oxygen and isoflurane and supplemented with fentanyl and atracurium. The expenditure of anaesthetic gases was recorded during a total of 61 h and 27 min and differentiated into its components. Anaesthetic gas uptake and costs were compared with different breathing systems (low-flow anaesthesia, semiclosed system and non-rebreathing system) under similar clinical conditions. RESULTS. The average minute volume was 6.84 (+/- 1.17) l and the expiratory isoflurane concentration was 0.91% (+/- 0.14%) (Table 1). These settings resulted in an oxygen expenditure of 27.9 (+/- 8.46) l/h with total costs of SFr. 0.04, nitrous oxide 11.9 (+/- 5.4) l/h and 0.27, isoflurane 3.9 ml/h and SFr. 5.42. In contrast, other breathing systems in analogous settings resulted in greater costs by a factor of 0.77 for low-flow anaesthesia (FGF 1 l/min), 2.47 for a semiclosed system (FGF 3 l/min) and 5.63 for a valve-controlled non-rebreathing system (FGF 6.84 l/min) (Table 2). DISCUSSION. The emission of anaesthetic gases can be lowered by measures that avoid unintended gas fallout, the application of filters, scavenging systems and efficient air circulation in operation and recovery rooms [8]. Above all, the use of the lowest possible FGF is advantageous for the patient insofar as better conditioned breathing gases are available, and economic and environmental effects are more significant (Table 3). With the method of quantitative anaesthesia as performed by the PhysioFlex, it is now possible to reduce gas expenditure according to the requirements of the patient as well as maintaining full control of anaesthesia depth. Simultaneously, multiple secured feedback control systems guarantee adequate monitoring and storage of respiratory and metabolic parameters. The duration of nitrous oxide wash-out can be a problem, in particular, when a changeover to O2/air is required.
使用能够以低新鲜气体流量(FGF)运行的麻醉机,可以显著减少麻醉气体对个人和环境的污染以及成本[9]。配备适当的环路系统可以实施低流量麻醉,尽管FGF大幅降低会使麻醉深度和气体浓度的控制能力降至最低。微处理器控制的反馈系统可在整个麻醉过程中使用闭路系统,保持完全的麻醉控制[3,5]。本研究的目的是确定最近上市的PhysioFlex麻醉机的气体消耗成本和临床适用性。方法。我们在15例常规耳鼻喉科手术中使用了一台PhysioFlex(荷兰霍夫多普的Physio公司生产)。用硫喷妥钠和琥珀胆碱诱导麻醉后,用30%氧气和异氟烷中的氧化亚氮维持全身麻醉,并补充芬太尼和阿曲库铵。在总共61小时27分钟的时间内记录麻醉气体的消耗情况,并将其分解为各个组成部分。在相似的临床条件下,将麻醉气体的摄取量和成本与不同的呼吸回路系统(低流量麻醉、半封闭系统和无重复吸入系统)进行比较。结果。平均分钟通气量为6.84(±1.17)升,呼气末异氟烷浓度为0.91%(±0.14%)(表1)。这些设置导致氧气消耗量为27.9(±8.46)升/小时,总成本为0.04瑞士法郎,氧化亚氮为11.9(±5.4)升/小时和0.27瑞士法郎,异氟烷为3.9毫升/小时和5.42瑞士法郎。相比之下,在类似设置下,其他呼吸回路系统的成本更高,低流量麻醉(FGF 1升/分钟)高出0.77倍,半封闭系统(FGF 3升/分钟)高出2.47倍,阀控无重复吸入系统(FGF 6.84升/分钟)高出5.63倍(表2)。讨论。可以通过避免意外气体泄漏的措施、过滤器的应用、清除系统以及手术和恢复室中的高效空气循环来降低麻醉气体的排放[8]。最重要的是,尽可能使用最低的FGF对患者有利,因为可以获得条件更好的呼吸气体,并且经济和环境影响更为显著(表3)。采用PhysioFlex进行的定量麻醉方法,现在可以根据患者的需求减少气体消耗,同时保持对麻醉深度的完全控制。同时,多个安全的反馈控制系统保证了对呼吸和代谢参数的充分监测和存储。氧化亚氮清除的持续时间可能是一个问题,特别是在需要转换为O2/空气时。