We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Numerous in vitro studies have shown that volatile anaesthetics react with desiccated carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbents to produce carbon monoxide (CO). The effects of anaesthetic concentration, fresh gas flow rate, and the hydration of absorbent or the excretion of CO2 by patients on CO production have also been investigated. This work aims to identify the most significant one of these factors on CO concentration in a low-flow anaesthesia system, without control of the hydration of the absorbents.
Methods
A simulated clinical circle anaesthetic breathing system was used to study the CO concentration under various conditions. Desflurane was used at three different concentrations. Two CO2 flow rates and three fresh gas flow rates were used. The absorbent temperatures and hydration were measured simultaneously.
Results
Desflurane degraded to produce CO in the breathing tube, when the CO2 absorbents were not dried beforehand. In this imitation clinical low-flow setting, fresh gas flow affected the CO production more than the CO2 did (31.7% vs. 9.5%). The actual desflurane partial pressure was not a significant factor. The CO2 flow rate explained 18.2% and 54.0% of the variation of the absorbent hydration changes (%) and temperature, respectively.
Conclusions
In clinical practice, the CO2 production varies among patients and is uncontrollable, but markedly affects CO production. The only controllable factor is the fresh gas flow rate if the ultimate goal is to reduce the undesirable exposure of patients to CO from the breathing tube according to this bench model without counting the oxygen consumption.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.