Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 5/2018

01-10-2018 | Original Research

In vitro performance of prefilled CO2 absorbers with the Zeus®

Authors: Mohab Omer, Jan F. A. Hendrickx, Simon De Ridder, Alexander De Houwer, Rik Carette, Sofie De Cooman, Andre M. De Wolf

Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing | Issue 5/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Low fresh gas flows (FGFs) decrease the use of anesthetic gases, but increase CO2 absorbent usage. CO2 absorbent usage remains poorly quantified. The goal of this study is to determine canister life of 8 commercially available CO2 absorbent prepacks with the Zeus®. Pre-packed CO2 canisters of 8 different brands were tested in vitro: Amsorb Plus, Spherasorb, LoFloSorb, LithoLyme, SpiraLith, SpheraSorb, Drägersorb 800+, Drägersorb Free, and CO2ntrol. CO2 (160 mL min− 1) flowed into the tip of a 2 L breathing bag that was ventilated with a tidal volume of 500 mL, a respiratory rate of 10/min, and an I:E ratio of 1:1 using the controlled mechanical ventilation mode of the Zeus® (Dräger, Lubeck, Germany). In part I, canister life of 5 canisters each of 2 different lots of each brand was determined with a 350 mL min− 1 FGF. Canister life is the time it takes for the inspired CO2 concentration (FICO2) to rise to 0.5%. In part II, canister life was measured accross a FGF range of 0.25 to 4 L min− 1 for Drägersorb 800+ (2 lots) and SpiraLith (1 lot). In part III, the calculated canister life per 100 g fresh granule content of the different brands was compared between the Zeus and (previously published data for) the Aisys. In vitro canister life of prefilled CO2 absorber canisters differed between brands, and depended on the amount of CO2 absorbent and chemical composition. Canister life expressed as FCU0.5 (the fraction of the canister used per hour) was proportional to FGF over 0.2–2 L min−1 range only, but was non-linear with higher FGF: FCU0.5 was larger than expected with FGF > 2 L min−1, and even with FGF > minute ventilation FCU0.5 did not become zero, indicating some CO2 was being absorbed. Canister life on a per weight basis of the same brand is higher with the Zeus than the Aisys. Canister life of prefilled CO2 absorber canisters differs between brands. The FCU0.5–FGF relationship is not linear across the entire FGF range. Canister life of prepacks of the same brand for the Zeus and Aisys differs, the exact etiology of which is probably multifactorial, and may include differences in the absolute amount of absorbent and different rebreathing characteristics of the machines.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Hendrickx JF, De Ridder SP, Dehouwer A, Carette R, De Cooman S, De Wolf AM. In vitro performance of prefilled CO2 absorbers with the Aisys®. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:193–202.CrossRefPubMed Hendrickx JF, De Ridder SP, Dehouwer A, Carette R, De Cooman S, De Wolf AM. In vitro performance of prefilled CO2 absorbers with the Aisys®. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:193–202.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Adriani J, Rovenstine EA. Experimental studies on carbon dioxide absorbers for anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1941;2:1–19.CrossRef Adriani J, Rovenstine EA. Experimental studies on carbon dioxide absorbers for anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1941;2:1–19.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Eger EIII., Ethans CT. The effects of inflow, overflow and valve placement on economy of the circle system. Anesthesiology. 1968;29:93–100.CrossRefPubMed Eger EIII., Ethans CT. The effects of inflow, overflow and valve placement on economy of the circle system. Anesthesiology. 1968;29:93–100.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
In vitro performance of prefilled CO2 absorbers with the Zeus®
Authors
Mohab Omer
Jan F. A. Hendrickx
Simon De Ridder
Alexander De Houwer
Rik Carette
Sofie De Cooman
Andre M. De Wolf
Publication date
01-10-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 1387-1307
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2614
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-017-0088-x

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 5/2018 Go to the issue