Development and validation of a model to calculate anesthetic agent consumption from inspired and end-expired concentrations, minute ventilation, fresh gas flow and dead space ventilation

• Published in: Journal of clinical monitoring and computing 2023-02, Vol.37 (1), p.227-235
• Main Authors: Cuveele, Louise, Hendrickx, Jan F. A., De Wolf, Andre M., De Cooman, Sofie, Chesebro, Brian B., Feldman, Jeffrey, Sherman, Jodi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Anesthesia, Inhalation; Anesthesiology; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Consumption; Critical Care Medicine; Desflurane; Empirical analysis; Gas flow; Health Sciences; Humans; Intensive; Isoflurane; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Methyl Ethers; Microbalances; Original Research; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Sevoflurane; Statistics for Life Sciences; Vaporizers; Ventilation; Workstations
• ISSN: 1387-1307; 1573-2614
• DOI: 10.1007/s10877-022-00883-5

Anesthetic agent consumption is often calculated as the product of fresh gas flow (FGF) and vaporizer dial setting (F VAP ). Because F VAP of conventional vaporizers is not registered in automated anesthesia records, retrospective agent consumption studies are hampered. The current study examines how F VAP can be retrospectively calculated from the agent’s inspired (F IN ) and end-expired concentration (F ET ), FGF, and minute ventilation (MV). Theoretical analysis of agent mass balances in the circle breathing reveals F VAP  = [F IN  − (dead space fraction * F IN  + (1 − dead space fraction) * F ET ) * (1 − FGF/MV)]/(1-(1 − FGF/MV)). F IN , F ET , FGF and MV are routinely monitored, but dead space fraction is unknown. Dead space fraction for sevoflurane, desflurane, and isoflurane was therefore determined empirically from an unpublished data set of 161 patient containing F VAP , F IN , F ET , MV and FGF ranging from 0.25 to 8 L/min delivered via an ADU® (GE, Madison, WI, USA). Dead space fraction for each agent was determined empirically by having Excel’s solver function calculate the value of dead space fraction that minimized the sum of the squared differences between dialed F VAP and predicted F VAP . With dead space fraction known, the model was then prospectively tested for sevoflurane in O 2 /air using data collected over the course of two weeks with one FLOW-i (Getinge, Solna, Sweden) and one Zeus workstation (Dräger, Lübeck, Germany). Because both workstations use an electronically controlled vaporizer/injector, the dialed F VAP were available to allow the calculation of median performance error (MDPE) and median absolute performance error (MDAPE). MDPE and MDAP are reported as median and interquartiles. The empirical dead space fraction for isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane were 0.59, 0.49, and 0.66, respectively. For prospective testing, a total of 149.4 h of useful data were collected from 78 patient with the Zeus and Flow-i combined, with FGF ranging from 0.18 to 8 L/min. The model predicted dialed F VAP well, with a MDPE of −1 (−11, 6) % and MDAPE of 8 (4, 17) %. F VAP can be retrospectively calculated from F IN , F ET , FGF, and MV plus an agent specific dead space fraction factor with a degree of error that we believe suffices for retrospective sevoflurane consumption analyses. Performance with other agents and N 2 O awaits further validation.