Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The environmental impact and cost of volatile anesthetics are significant concerns in modern anesthesia. Automated end-tidal control systems aim to optimize anesthetic delivery by reducing waste and improving efficiency. This study compared the effectiveness of end-tidal controlled (EtControl) low-flow anesthesia to manually controlled (MC) low-flow anesthesia in elective surgeries.</p> Design <p>A randomized controlled trial.</p> Methods <p>This study was conducted with 132 ASA Class I–II patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to the EtControl (<i>n</i> = 66) or MC (<i>n</i> = 66) groups. The primary outcomes included anesthetic agent consumption (mL).</p> Findings <p>Anesthetic consumption was similar between the EtControl group (17.9 ± 2.63 mL) and the MC group (18.45 ± 2.44 mL) (<i>p</i> = 0.07). The rate of anesthetic consumption per minute was also comparable (0.120 mL/min vs. 0.127 mL/min; <i>p</i> = 0.514).</p> Conclusions <p>EtControl and MC methods provide comparable safety and sevoflurane consumption during low-flow anesthesia. However, EtControl reduces manual adjustments, enhancing workflow efficiency and cost-effectiveness, with potential implications for reducing environmental impact.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The effects of end-tidal controlled low-flow anesthesia on anesthetic agent consumption in elective surgeries: randomized controlled trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月11日

查看全文
  • Elzem Sen,
  • Suleyman Ganidaglı,
  • Ayse Mizrak,
  • Berna Kaya Ugur,
  • Mehmet Cesur,
  • Fahrettin Yildiz,
  • Lutfiye Pirbudak

摘要

Purpose

The environmental impact and cost of volatile anesthetics are significant concerns in modern anesthesia. Automated end-tidal control systems aim to optimize anesthetic delivery by reducing waste and improving efficiency. This study compared the effectiveness of end-tidal controlled (EtControl) low-flow anesthesia to manually controlled (MC) low-flow anesthesia in elective surgeries.

Design

A randomized controlled trial.

Methods

This study was conducted with 132 ASA Class I–II patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to the EtControl (n = 66) or MC (n = 66) groups. The primary outcomes included anesthetic agent consumption (mL).

Findings

Anesthetic consumption was similar between the EtControl group (17.9 ± 2.63 mL) and the MC group (18.45 ± 2.44 mL) (p = 0.07). The rate of anesthetic consumption per minute was also comparable (0.120 mL/min vs. 0.127 mL/min; p = 0.514).

Conclusions

EtControl and MC methods provide comparable safety and sevoflurane consumption during low-flow anesthesia. However, EtControl reduces manual adjustments, enhancing workflow efficiency and cost-effectiveness, with potential implications for reducing environmental impact.