Compound A production from sevoflurane is not less when KOH-free absorbent is used in a closed-circuit lung model system

Performance of a new carbon dioxide absorbent, Yabashi lime® as compared to conventional carbon dioxide absorbent during sevoflurane anesthesia in dogs

In the present study, we compare a new carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbent, Yabashi lime(®) with a conventional CO2 absorbent, Sodasorb(®) as a control CO2 absorbent for Compound A (CA) and Carbon monoxide (CO) productions. Four dogs were anesthetized with sevoflurane. Each dog was anesthetized with four preparations, Yabashi lime(®) with high or low-flow rate of oxygen and control CO2 absorbent with high or low-flow rate. CA and CO concentrations in the anesthetic circuit, canister temperature and carbooxyhemoglobin (COHb) concentration in the blood were measured. Yabashi lime(®) did not produce CA. Control CO2 absorbent generated CA, and its concentration was significantly higher in low-flow rate than a high-flow rate. CO was generated only in low-flow rate groups, but there was no significance between Yabashi lime(®) groups and control CO2 absorbent groups. However, the CO concentration in the circuit could not be detected (≤5ppm), and no change was found in COHb level. Canister temperature was significantly higher in low-flow rate groups than high-flow rate groups. Furthermore, in low-flow rate groups, the lower layer of canister temperature in control CO2 absorbent group was significantly higher than Yabashi lime(®) group. CA and CO productions are thought to be related to the composition of CO2 absorbent, flow rate and canister temperature. Though CO concentration is equal, it might be safer to use Yabashi lime(®) with sevoflurane anesthesia in dogs than conventional CO2 absorbent at the point of CA production.

Comparison of the renal safety between carbon dioxide absorbent products under sevoflurane anesthesia: a pilot study

Background

The chemical reaction of carbon dioxide absorbent and sevoflurane is known to produce compound A. However, carbon dioxide absorbents are not controlled by the Food and Drug Administration, but are treated as industrial products in some nations. Moreover, carbon dioxide absorbents differ in their capacities to produce compound A, because their chemical compositions differ. In this study, we compared the renal safety between carbon dioxide absorbent products in patients under sevoflurane anesthesia.

Methods

Eighty patients with no preexisting renal disease undergoing elective gynecologic surgery were randomly assigned to receive sevoflurane or isoflurane anesthesia with one of four carbon dioxide absorbent products (Sodasorblime®, Sodalyme®, Sodasorb®, Spherasorb®) at the same fresh gas flow of 2 L/min. The renal safety was evaluated by changes of blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine and urine N-acetyl-b-glucoseaminidase (NAG)-creatinine ratio at 24 hours and 72 hours after surgery from preoperative level.

Results

There was no significant difference in the renal safety indicators between carbon dioxide absorbents during sevoflurane anesthesia (P > 0.05). However, the BUN and urine NAG-creatinine ratios at 72 hours after surgery were higher in isoflurane anesthesia in some carbon dioxide absorbent groups (P = 0.03 and 0.04, respectively).

Conclusions

We could not find significant differences of renal safety indicators with carbon dioxide absorbents. Although the adverse effect of carbon dioxide absorbents on renal function was not proved, consideration should be given to their contol by the regulation on their efficacy and safety because carbon dioxide absorbents can produce compound A.

No compound a formation with Superia during minimal-flow sevoflurane anesthesia: a comparison with Sofnolime

There is concern about the toxicity of Compound (Co) A. Absorbents differ in the production of Co A during minimal-flow sevoflurane anesthesia. Strong alkali-free Amsorb does not produce Co A. It was our aim to study Superia, another new NaOH- and KOH-free CO(2) absorbent, in minimal-flow anesthesia, compared with KOH-free Sofnolime. After Ethics Committee approval, 14 consenting adult patients were included randomly by using Superia or Sofnolime as the CO(2) absorbent in the compact 750-mL canister of an ADU ventilator. After propofol and remifentanil administration, sevoflurane was given in oxygen and air (500 mL/min; fraction of inspired oxygen, 0.4), aiming at an end-tidal concentration of 2.3%-2.5%; ventilation aimed for 33-35 mm Hg PETCO(2). Compound A inspired (Co A(insp)) and expired (Co A(exp)) samples were taken for analysis, and canister temperatures were measured for 150 min. Statistical analysis was performed with the Friedman test or the Mann-Whitney U-test where appropriate. Correction for multiple testing was used. In the Superia group, no significant amount of Co A was formed, whereas in the Sofnolime group, maximum median (range) inspiratory values of 25 ppm (16 ppm) were found. The intergroup difference was P < 0.05. No difference was noticed between the two groups for the canister CO(2) absorbent temperature.

IMPLICATIONS

During minimal-flow 2.3%-2.5% end-tidal sevoflurane, no compound A (Co A) is formed with the NaOH- and KOH-free CO(2) absorbent Superia. Although Co A values with KOH-free Sofnolime are still within reported safe limits, Superia is definitely an alternative for safe clinical practice.