Multiple inert gas elimination technique by micropore membrane inlet mass spectrometry--a comparison with reference gas chromatography.

The mismatching of alveolar ventilation and perfusion (VA/Q) is the major determinant of impaired gas exchange. The gold standard for measuring VA/Q distributions is based on measurements of the elimination and retention of infused inert gases. Conventional multiple inert gas elimination technique (MIGET) uses gas chromatography (GC) to measure the inert gas partial pressures, which requires tonometry of blood samples with a gas that can then be injected into the chromatograph. The method is laborious and requires meticulous care. A new technique based on micropore membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MMIMS) facilitates the handling of blood and gas samples and provides nearly real-time analysis. In this study we compared MIGET by GC and MMIMS in 10 piglets: 1) 3 with healthy lungs; 2) 4 with oleic acid injury; and 3) 3 with isolated left lower lobe ventilation. The different protocols ensured a large range of normal and abnormal VA/Q distributions. Eight inert gases (SF6, krypton, ethane, cyclopropane, desflurane, enflurane, diethyl ether, and acetone) were infused; six of these gases were measured with MMIMS, and six were measured with GC. We found close agreement of retention and excretion of the gases and the constructed VA/Q distributions between GC and MMIMS, and predicted PaO2 from both methods compared well with measured PaO2. VA/Q by GC produced more widely dispersed modes than MMIMS, explained in part by differences in the algorithms used to calculate VA/Q distributions. In conclusion, MMIMS enables faster measurement of VA/Q, is less demanding than GC, and produces comparable results.

Which Anesthesia Regimen Is Best to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in Lung Surgery? A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND One-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery is associated with hypoxia-reoxygenation injury in the deflated and subsequently reventilated lung. Numerous studies have reported volatile anesthesia-induced attenuation of inflammatory responses in such scenarios. If the effect also extends to clinical outcome is yet undetermined. We hypothesized that volatile anesthesia is superior to intravenous anesthesia regarding postoperative complications. METHODS Five centers in Switzerland participated in the randomized controlled trial. Patients scheduled for lung surgery with one-lung ventilation were randomly assigned to one of two parallel arms to receive either propofol or desflurane as general anesthetic. Patients and surgeons were blinded to group allocation. Time to occurrence of the first major complication according to the Clavien-Dindo score was defined as primary (during hospitalization) or secondary (6-month follow-up) endpoint. Cox regression models were used with adjustment for prestratification variables and age. RESULTS Of 767 screened patients, 460 were randomized and analyzed (n = 230 for each arm). Demographics, disease and intraoperative characteristics were comparable in both groups. Incidence of major complications during hospitalization was 16.5% in the propofol and 13.0% in the desflurane groups (hazard ratio for desflurane vs. propofol, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.22; P = 0.24). Incidence of major complications within 6 months from surgery was 40.4% in the propofol and 39.6% in the desflurane groups (hazard ratio for desflurane vs. propofol, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.28; P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial addressing the effect of volatile versus intravenous anesthetics on major complications after lung surgery. No difference between the two anesthesia regimens was evident.