These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Accuracy and cross-sensitivity of 10 different anesthetic gas monitors.
    Author: Walder B, Lauber R, Zbinden AM.
    Journal: J Clin Monit; 1993 Nov; 9(5):364-73. PubMed ID: 8106890.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to test the accuracy and cross-sensitivity of commercially available anesthetic gas monitors. METHODS: Using gas chromatography (GC) as a reference method, the accuracy, cross-sensitivity, and ability to recognize an erroneously selected agent were determined in the following 10 monitors for volatile anesthetics: Datex Capnomac Ultima-S, Datex Capnomac, Ohmeda 5330 agent monitor, Iris Dräger, Andros Dräger PM 8020 (all monochromatic, infrared analyzers), Nellcor N-2500E, Criticare POET II, Irina Dräger (all polychromatic, infrared analyzers), Siemens Servo Gas Monitor 120 (a piezoelectric analyzer), and Brüel & Kajer Type 1304 (a photoacoustic analyzer). Accuracy was determined at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 times the minimal alveolar concentration (MAC) of either halothane or isoflurane in oxygen (O2). The cross-sensitivity tests were performed with 70 vol% nitrous oxide in O2, 5 vol% carbon dioxide in O2, 0.032 vol% alcohol in O2, and 70% water vapor in O2. The photoacoustic analyzer showed a higher accuracy for isoflurane than the polychromatic infrared monitors. The greatest inaccuracy with isoflurane was found in the Iris Dräger monitor, which had a maximal bias percentage by volume (vol%) of 0.09 at 0.5 MAC. (This bias was within the manufacturer's specified tolerance of +/- 0.1 vol% or 10% relative difference of reading, whichever is greater.) Irina Dräger was the most accurate analyzer with halothane (mean % bias [relative %] +/- SD, 0.9 +/- 2.0%). The greatest bias with halothane was found in the monochromatic infrared analyzers, with a maximal % bias at 0.5 MAC of 50.3% of the GC reading (12.4% with a new inner Nafion tube) found in the Datex Ultima monitor. The Siemens gas monitor showed a cross-sensitivity for water vapor (-0.248 vol%). The monochromatic infrared analyzers showed a small sensitivity to alcohol (additional deviation of 0.011 to 0.147 vol% at 2 MAC isoflurane) but no sensitivity to nitrous oxide. No cross-sensitivity was found in the polychromatic infrared and photoacoustic analyzers. An incorrect selection of anesthetic agent when using a monochromatic infrared analyzer can be fatal; for example, when using halothane and selecting isoflurane the values measured by the Datex Capnomac monitor were nearly 6 times: below the actual value (i.e., 1 vol% "isoflurane" on the display = 6 vol% halothane in reality). CONCLUSIONS: The photoacoustic measurement principle is more accurate than the other methods, although the polychromatic infrared analyzers are safer because they detect erroneously selected agents.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]