Premium
Compound A, formaldehyde and methanol concentrations during low‐flow sevoflurane anaesthesia: comparison of three carbon dioxide absorbers
Author(s) -
Marini F.,
Bellugi I.,
Gambi D.,
Pacenti M.,
Dugheri S.,
Focardi L.,
Tulli G.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
acta anaesthesiologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 107
eISSN - 1399-6576
pISSN - 0001-5172
DOI - 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2007.01278.x
Subject(s) - formaldehyde , soda lime , sevoflurane , medicine , anesthesia , methanol , carbon dioxide , significant difference , lime , zoology , surgery , chromatography , chemistry , biochemistry , organic chemistry , materials science , metallurgy , biology
Aim: To determine compound A, formaldehyde and methanol concentrations in low‐flow anaesthesia using different carbon dioxide absorbers. Methods: Fifteen patients scheduled for general or urological surgery were exposed to low‐flow (500 ml/min) anaesthesia with sevoflurane. The patients were randomly allocated to three groups: soda lime, DrägerSorb Free ® or Amsorb Plus ® . The concentrations of compound A, formaldehyde and methanol were sampled and analysed from the limbs of the anaesthesia circuit at T30 (30 min after the start of low‐flow sevoflurane anaesthesia), T90 (90 min) and T150 (150 min). The temperatures of the absorbers were measured at the same time. Results: Statistically significant differences ( P < 0.05) were found in the production of compound A from soda lime (with the highest values), DrägerSorb Free ® and Amsorb Plus ® at each measurement time. Only traces of methanol (ranging from < 0.131 to 3.799 mg/m 3 ) were measured, higher with Amsorb Plus ® (statistically significant differences were found only at T90). The formaldehyde values (ranging from < 0.1227 to 17.79 mcg/m 3 p.p.b.) were higher with soda lime, and the difference was statistically significant at T150 and, in the inspiratory limb only, at T90. The temperatures of the absorbers were higher for soda lime and lower for Amsorb Plus ® ; the difference was statistically significant at T0 in the upper canister and at T30 in both canisters. Conclusion: The concentrations of harmful products in the circuit were negligible and were lower using the new‐generation absorbers. Using Amsorb Plus ® , the temperatures in the canisters were lower than with the other two absorbers.