Exposure to anaesthetic trace gases during general anaesthesia: CobraPLA vs. LMA classic

Photoacoustic gas monitoring for anesthetic gas pollution measurements and its cross-sensitivity to alcoholic disinfectants

Background

Real-time photoacoustic gas monitoring is used for personnel exposure and environmental monitoring, but its accuracy varies when organic solvents such as alcohol contaminate measurements. This is problematic for anesthetic gas measurements in hospitals, because most disinfectants contain alcohol, which could lead to false-high gas concentrations. We investigated the cross-sensitivities of the photoacoustic gas monitor Innova 1412 (AirTech Instruments, LumaSense, Denmark) against alcohols and alcoholic disinfectants while measuring sevoflurane, desflurane and isoflurane in a laboratory and in hospital during surgery.

Methods

25 mL ethyl alcohol was distributed on a hotplate. An optical filter for isoflurane was used and the gas monitor measured the ‘isoflurane’ concentration for five minutes with the measuring probe fixed 30 cm above the hotplate. Then, 5 mL isoflurane was added vaporized via an Anesthetic Conserving Device (Sedana Medical, Uppsala, Sweden). After one-hour measurement, 25 mL isopropyl alcohol, N-propanol, and two alcoholic disinfectants were subsequently added, each in combination with 5 mL isoflurane. The same experiment was in turn performed for sevoflurane and desflurane. The practical impact of the cross-sensitivity was investigated on abdominal surgeons who were exposed intraoperatively to sevoflurane. A new approach to overcome the gas monitor’s cross-sensitivity is presented.

Results

Cross-sensitivity was observed for all alcohols and its strength characteristic for the tested agent. Simultaneous uses of anesthetic gases and alcohols increased the concentrations and the recovery times significantly, especially while sevoflurane was utilized. Intraoperative measurements revealed mean and maximum sevoflurane concentrations of 0.61 ± 0.26 ppm and 15.27 ± 14.62 ppm. We replaced the cross-sensitivity peaks with the 10th percentile baseline of the anesthetic gas concentration. This reduced mean and maximum concentrations significantly by 37% (p < 0.001) and 86% (p < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusion

Photoacoustic gas monitoring is useful to detect lowest anesthetic gases concentrations, but cross-sensitivity caused one third falsely high measured mean gas concentration. One possibility to eliminate these peaks is the recovery time-based baseline approach. Caution should be taken while measuring sevoflurane, since marked cross-sensitivity peaks are to be expected.

Cobra-PLA provides higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than LMA-Classic and LMA-Unique: A meta-analysis with 22 studies

Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (Cobra-PLA) is a relatively new single-use supraglottic device employed during general anesthesia. This meta-analysis includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielding extensive comparison results among Cobra-PLA, Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA)-Classic, and LMA-Unique.Two authors performed searches in EMBASE, CENTRAL, PubMed, and ScienceDirect to identify RCTs that compared Cobra-PLA with LMA-Classic and with LMA-Unique in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Both random- and fixed-effects models were used. Begg's funnel plot was used to evaluate publication bias.Twenty-two RCTs with a total of 1845 patients were included. Cobra-PLA offered significantly higher oropharyngeal leak pressure than LMA-Classic [mean difference (MD) = 3.56 (1.56, 5.55), P = .0005] and LMA-Unique [MD = 4.44 (2.12, 6.76), P = .0002]. First-insertion success rate, ease of insertion, insertion time, and reported complications among Cobra-PLA, LMA-Classic, and LMA-Unique were similar.Compared with the commonly used LMA-Classic and LMA-Unique, Cobra-PLA provides superior airway sealing.

Waste anesthetic gas exposure and strategies for solution

As inhaled anesthetics are widely used, medical staff have inevitably suffered from exposure to anesthetic waste gases (WAGs). Whether chronic exposure to WAGs has an impact on the health of medical staff has long been a common concern, but conclusions are not consistent. Many measures and equipment have been proposed to reduce the concentration of WAGs as far as possible. This review aims to dissect the current exposure to WAGs and its influence on medical staff in the workplace and the environment, and summarize strategies to reduce WAGs.

Comparison Between the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway and Laryngeal Mask Airways Under General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The complication rate and efficacy of the Cobra Perilaryngeal Airway (CobraPLA) and laryngeal mask airways (LMAs®) have been evaluated in the published literature, but the conclusions have been inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was thus to assess the performance of the CobraPLA and LMAs under general anesthesia. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing the CobraPLA with LMAs under general anesthesia. The LMAs used for comparison were the classic LMA (CLMA) and the unique LMA (ULMA). The random effect model was used if heterogeneity was observed, otherwise the fixed effect model was used. Seventeen randomized controlled trials were included; number of studies analyzed for each result are different and were up to 10. The current result suggests that no significant difference between the devices in the insertion success rate at the first attempt. The success rate of first insertion of the CobraPLA was not different from the rates for the CLMA and the ULMA (relative risk: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.00). CobraPLA insertion was not different from CLMA and ULMA insertion. The CobraPLA provided an oropharyngeal leak pressure higher than that provided by the CLMA (weight mean difference: 3.90, 95% CI, [1.59-6.21] cmH2O) and ULMA (weight mean difference: 6.57, 95% CI, [4.30-8.84] cmH2O). We also found a higher likelihood of blood staining in the airway with the CobraPLA than with the CLMA. In our research, the principal finding of our meta-analysis is that the success rate of first insertion of the CobraPLA was not different from the rate for each of the CLMA and the ULMA, which featured a short learning curve implying its ease of insertion. There was also no significant difference in the incidence of the best view (with a score of 4) obtained with the CobraPLA compared with the other 2 devices. The CobraPLA does seem to be superior to the CLMA and ULMA in providing a higher oropharyngeal leak pressure. The data were insufficient to establish differences in airway adverse events between the groups except for blood staining in the devices, although mucosal trauma occurred more frequently with the Cobra PLA device than with the CLMA and the ULMA.

Does standing or sitting position of the anesthesiologist in the operating theatre influence sevoflurane exposure during craniotomies?

BACKGROUND

Exposure of the OR staff to inhalational anesthetics has been proven by numerous investigators, but its potential adverse effect under the present technical circumstances is a debated issue. The aim of the present work was to test whether using a laminar flow air conditioning system exposure of the team to anesthetic gases is different if the anesthetist works in the sitting as compared to the standing position.

METHODS

Sample collectors were placed at the side of the patient and were fixed at two different heights: at 100 cm (modelling sitting position) and 175 cm (modelling standing position), whereas the third collector was placed at the independent corner of the OR. Collected amount of sevoflurane was determined by an independent chemist using gas chromatography.

RESULTS

At the height of the sitting position the captured amount of sevoflurane was somewhat higher (median and IQR: 0.55; 0.29-1.73 ppm) than that at the height of standing (0.37; 0.15-0.79 ppm), but this difference did not reach the level of statistical significance. A significantly lower sevoflurane concentration was measured at the indifferent corner of the OR (0.14; 0.058-0.36 ppm, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Open isolation along with the air flow due to the laminar system does not result in higher anesthetic exposure for the sitting anesthetist positioned to the side of the patient. Evaporated amount of sevoflurane is below the accepted threshold limits in both positions.

Occupational Chronic Sevoflurane Exposure in the Everyday Reality of the Anesthesia Workplace

BACKGROUND

Although sevoflurane is one of the most commonly used volatile anesthetics in clinical practice, anesthesiologists are hardly aware of their individual occupational chronic sevoflurane exposure. Therefore, we studied sevoflurane concentrations in the anesthesiologists' breathing zones, depending on the kind of induction for general anesthesia, the used airway device, and the type of airflow system in the operating room. Furthermore, sevoflurane baselines and typical peaks during general anesthesia were determined.

METHODS

Measurements were performed with the LumaSense Photoacoustic Gas Monitor. As we detected the gas monitor's cross-sensitivity reactions between sevoflurane and disinfectants, regression lines for customarily used disinfectants during surgery (Cutasept®, Octeniderm®) and their alcoholic components were initially analyzed. Hospital sevoflurane concentrations were thereafter measured during elective surgery in 119 patients. The amount of inhaled sevoflurane by anesthesiologists was estimated according to mVA = cVA × V × t × ρVA aer.

RESULTS

Induction of general anesthesia stopped after tracheal intubation with the patient's expiratory sevoflurane concentration of 1.5%. Thereby, inhalational inductions (INH) caused higher sevoflurane concentrations than IV inductions (mean [SD]: (Equation is included in full-text article.)[ppm] INH 2.43 ± 1.91 versus IV 0.62 ± 0.33, P < 0.001; mVA [mg] INH 1.95 ± 1.54 versus IV 0.30 ± 0.22, P < 0.001). The use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA™) led to generally higher sevoflurane concentrations in the anesthesiologists' breathing zones than tracheal tubes ((Equation is included in full-text article.)[ppm] tube 0.37 ± 0.16 versus LMA™ 0.79 ± 0.53, P = 0.009; (Equation is included in full-text article.)[ppm] tube 1.91 ± 0.91 versus LMA™ 2.91 ± 1.81, P = 0.057; mVA [mg] tube 1.47 ± 0.64 versus LMA™ 2.73 ± 1.81, P = 0.019). Sevoflurane concentrations were trended higher during surgery in operating rooms with turbulent flow (TF) air-conditioning systems compared with laminar flow (LF) air-conditioning systems ((Equation is included in full-text article.)[ppm] TF 0.29 ± 0.12 versus LF 0.13 ± 0.06, P = 0.012; mVA [mg/h] TF 1.16 ± 0.50 versus LF 0.51 ± 0.25, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesiologists are chronically exposed to trace concentrations of sevoflurane during work. Inhalational inductions, LMA™, and TF air-conditioning systems in particular are associated with higher sevoflurane exposure. However, the amount of inhaled sevoflurane per day was lower than expected, perhaps because concentrations in previous measurements could be overestimated (10%-15%) because of the cross-sensitivity reaction.

Brief review: theory and practice of minimal fresh gas flow anesthesia

PURPOSE

The aim of this brief review is to provide an update on the theory regarding minimal fresh gas flow techniques for inhaled general anesthesia. The article also includes an update and discussion of the practical aspects associated with minimal-flow anesthesia, including the advantages, potential limitations, and safety considerations of this important anesthetic technique.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Reducing the fresh gas flow to < 1 L·min(-1) during maintenance of anesthesia is associated with several benefits. Enhanced preservation of temperature and humidity, cost savings through more efficient utilization of inhaled anesthetics, and environmental considerations are three key reasons to implement minimal-flow and closed-circuit anesthesia, although potential risks are hypoxic gas mixtures and inadequate depth of anesthesia. The basic elements of the related pharmacology need to be considered, especially pharmacokinetics of the inhaled anesthetics. The third-generation inhaled anesthetics, sevoflurane and desflurane, have low blood and low tissue solubility, which facilitates rapid equilibration between the alveolar and effect site (brain) concentrations and makes them ideally suited for low-flow techniques. The use of modern anesthetic machines designed for minimal-flow techniques, leak-free circle systems, highly efficient CO(2) absorbers, and the common practice of utilizing on-line real-time multi-gas monitor, including essential alarm systems, allow for safe and cost-effective minimal-flow techniques during maintenance of anesthesia. The introduction of new anesthetic machines with built-in closed-loop algorithms for the automatic control of inspired oxygen and end-tidal anesthetic concentration will further enhance the feasibility of minimal-flow techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

With our modern anesthesia machines, reducing the fresh gas flow of oxygen to 0.3-0.5 L·min(-1) and using third-generation inhaled anesthetics provide a reassuringly safe anesthetic technique. This environmentally friendly practice can easily be implemented for elective anesthesia; furthermore, it will facilitate cost savings and improve temperature homeostasis.