Coronavirus Disease 2019: Anesthesia Machine Circuit Pressure During Use as an Improvised Intensive Care Unit Ventilator. (12th January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pham, Vinh; Nguyen, Le; Hedin, Riley J.; Shaver, Courtney; Hammonds, Kendall A. P.; Culp, William C.
• Is Part Of: Anesthesia & analgesia. Volume 132:Number 5(2021)
• Page Start: 1191
• Page End: 1198
• Publication Date: 2021-01-12
• Subjects: Anesthesiology -- Periodicals; Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Analgesia; Analgesics; Anesthesiology -- Periodicals; 617.9605
• DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005427
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-2999

Abstract

Abstract : BACKGROUND: Use of anesthesia machines as improvised intensive care unit (ICU) ventilators may occur in locations where waste anesthesia gas suction (WAGS) is unavailable. Anecdotal reports suggest as much as 18 cm H2 O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) being inadvertently applied under these circumstances, accompanied by inaccurate pressure readings by the anesthesia machine. We hypothesized that resistance within closed anesthesia gas scavenging systems (AGSS) disconnected from WAGS may inadvertently increase circuit pressures. METHODS: An anesthesia machine was connected to an anesthesia breathing circuit, a reference manometer, and a standard bag reservoir to simulate a lung. Ventilation was initiated as follows: volume control, tidal volume (TV) 500 mL, respiratory rate 12, ratio of inspiration to expiration times (I:E) 1:1.9, fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio 2 ) 1.0, fresh gas flow (FGF) rate 2.0 liters per minute (LPM), and PEEP 0 cm H2 O. After engaging the ventilator, PEEP and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) were measured by the reference manometer and the anesthesia machine display simultaneously. The process was repeated using prescribed PEEP levels of 5, 10, 15, and 20 cm H2 O. Measurements were repeated with the WAGS disconnected and then were performed again at FGF of 4, 6, 8, 10, and 15 LPM. This process was completed on 3 anesthesia machines: Dräger Perseus A500, Dräger Apollo, and the GE Avance CS 2 . Simple linear regression was used to assess differences. RESULTS: Utilizing nonparametric Bland-Altman analysis, the reference and machine manometer measurements of PIP demonstrated median differences of −0.40 cm H2 O (95% limits of agreement [LOA], −1.00 to 0.55) for the Dräger Apollo, −0.40 cm H2 O (95% LOA, −1.10 to 0.41) for the Dräger Perseus, and 1.70 cm H2 O (95% LOA, 0.80-3.00) for the GE Avance CS 2 . At FGF 2 LPM and PEEP 0 cm H2 O with the WAGS disconnected, the Dräger Apollo had a difference in PEEP of 0.02 cm H2 O (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.04 to 0.08; P = .53); the Dräger Perseus A500, <0.0001 cm H2 O (95% CI, −0.11 to 0.11; P = 1.00); and the GE Avance CS 2, 8.62 cm H2 O (95% CI, 8.55-8.69; P < .0001). After removing the hose connected to the AGSS and the visual indicator bag on the GE Avance CS 2, the PEEP difference was 0.12 cm H2 O (95% CI, 0.059-0.181; P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: Displayed airway pressure measurements are clinically accurate in the setting of disconnected WAGS. The Dräger Perseus A500 and Apollo with open scavenging systems do not deliver inadvertent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with WAGS disconnected, but the GE Avance CS 2 with a closed AGSS does. This increase in airway pressure can be mitigated by the manufacturer's recommended alterations. Anesthesiologists should be aware of the potential clinically important increases in pressure that may be inadvertently delivered on some anesthesia machines, should the WAGS not be properly connected.