Most people in Germany die in institutions; the most common place of death is still the hospital, where more than half of all deaths take place. Only one death in four occurs at home. There is a marked secular trend away from dying at home or in the hospital, in favor of dying in a care or nursing home; death in palliative care units and hospices is also becoming more common.

Anesthesiologists are chronically exposed to trace concentrations of sevoflurane during work. Inhalational inductions, LMA™, and TF air-conditioning systems in particular are associated with higher sevoflurane exposure. However, the amount of inhaled sevoflurane per day was lower than expected, perhaps because concentrations in previous measurements could be overestimated (10%-15%) because of the cross-sensitivity reaction.

BackgroundThe MIRUS™ (TIM, Koblenz, Germany) is an electronical gas delivery system, which offers an automated MAC (minimal alveolar concentration)-driven application of isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane, and can be used for sedation in the intensive care unit. We investigated its consumption of volatile anesthetics at 0.5 MAC (primary endpoint) and the corresponding costs. Secondary endpoints were the technical feasibility to reach and control the MAC automatically, the depth of sedation at 0.5 MAC, and awakening times. Mechanically ventilated and sedated patients after major surgery were enrolled. Upon arrival in the intensive care unit, patients obtained intravenous propofol sedation for at least 1 h to collect ventilation and blood gas parameters, before they were switched to inhalational sedation using MIRUS™ with isoflurane, sevoflurane, or desflurane. After a minimum of 2 h, inhalational sedation was stopped, and awakening times were recorded. A multivariate electroencephalogram and the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) were used to assess the depth of sedation. Vital signs, ventilation parameters, gas consumption, MAC, and expiratory gas concentrations were continuously recorded.ResultsThirty patients obtained inhalational sedation for 18:08 [14:46–21:34] [median 1st–3rd quartiles] hours. The MAC was 0.58 [0.50–0.64], resulting in a Narcotrend Index of 37.1 [30.9–42.4] and a RASS of − 3.0 [− 4.0 to (− 3.0)]. The median gas consumption was significantly lowest for isoflurane ([ml h−1]: isoflurane: 3.97 [3.61–5.70]; sevoflurane: 8.91 [6.32–13.76]; and desflurane: 25.88 [20.38–30.82]; p < 0.001). This corresponds to average costs of 0.39 € h−1 for isoflurane, 2.14 € h−1 for sevoflurane, and 7.54 € h−1 for desflurane. Awakening times (eye opening [min]: isoflurane: 9:48 [4:15–20:18]; sevoflurane: 3:45 [0:30–6:30]; desflurane: 2:00 [1:00–6:30]; p = 0.043) and time to extubation ([min]: isoflurane: 10:10 [8:00–20:30]; sevoflurane: 7:30 [4:37–14:22]; desflurane: 3:00 [3:00–6:00]; p = 0.007) were significantly shortest for desflurane.ConclusionsA target-controlled, MAC-driven automated application of volatile anesthetics is technically feasible and enables an adequate depth of sedation. Gas consumption was highest for desflurane, which is also the most expensive volatile anesthetic. Although awakening times were shortest, the actual time saving of a few minutes might be negligible for most patients in the intensive care unit. Thus, using desflurane seems not rational from an economic perspective.Trial registration Clinical Trials Registry (ref.: NCT03860129). Registered 24 September 2018—Retrospectively registered.

SummaryAlthough sevoflurane is commonly used in anaesthesia, a threshold value for maximum exposure to personnel does not exist and although anaesthetists are aware of the problem, surgeons rarely focus on it. We used a photo-acoustic infrared device to measure the exposure of surgeons to sevoflurane during paediatric adenoidectomies. Sixty children were randomly allocated to laryngeal mask, cuffed tracheal tube or uncuffed tracheal tube. The average mean (maximum) sevoflurane concentrations within the surgeons' operating area were 1.05 (10.05) ppm in the laryngeal mask group, 0.33 (1.44) ppm in the cuffed tracheal tube group and 1.79 (18.02) ppm in the uncuffed tracheal tube group, (p < 0.001), laryngeal mask and cuffed tracheal tube groups vs. uncuffed tube group. The presence of sevoflurane was noticed by surgeons in 20% of cases but there were no differences between the groups (p = 0.193). Surgical and anaesthetic complications were similar in all three groups. We conclude that sevoflurane can be safely used during adenoidectomies with all three airway devices, but in order to minimise sevoflurane peak concentrations, cuffed tracheal tubes are preferred.