I have heard conflicting statements on when to change out the CO2 absorber when flushing a machine for a MH patient. I have heard that you should change out the absorber at the beginning of the flush and this is what the technicians do at my institution. However, my machine manufacturer (aestiva/GE) recommends changing the absorber after the flush. Anyone have any additional insight on this? Does it really matter at what point the absorber is changed? Thanks.
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anesthesia Machine Flush
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
A) Why would you ignore the machine manufacturer and take our opinion?
B) The Co2 absorber can hold onto some particles of volatile anesthetics, it makes sense to change it after you've flushed.
B) The Co2 absorber can hold onto some particles of volatile anesthetics, it makes sense to change it after you've flushed.
If you flush your machine then the CO2 absorbent will dry out and be ineffective. Therefore, you change it after.
D
deleted171991
GE says before.
https://www3.gehealthcare.com/~/med..._anesthesia-machine-malignant-hypothermia.pdf
If you want to be sure you're doing it right, change it both before and after. 🙂
https://www3.gehealthcare.com/~/med..._anesthesia-machine-malignant-hypothermia.pdf
If you want to be sure you're doing it right, change it both before and after. 🙂
I certainly do plan on following manufacturer recommendations, but I wonder if it even matters. I have seen it done both ways at various institutions. Biomed at my current institution disagrees with the manufacturer and the manufacturer cannot seem to give me any data/explanation to support their recommendations. Also I am not sure that a 40 minute flush at 15L/min would be enough to desiccate an absorber and render it ineffective.
On one hand if you change the canister/absorber before the flush, you can flush the machine without a contaminated CO2 absorber continually releasing retained volatile anesthetics into the circuit. However, the new absorbent may accumulate and retain additional volatile during the flushing process.
Conversely, if the canister and absorber are changed at the end of the flush you can be sure the new absorbent has no retained volatile. However, I would think that flushing the machine with contaminated absorbent is inefficient.
Probably as propadope suggested - it may be best to empty any old absorber from the CO2 canister prior. Then put the old, but now empty canister on the machine and start the flush. This would prevent old absorbent front continually releasing any retained volatile into the circuit. Once the flush is finished, put a new canister with fresh absorber on the machine.
On one hand if you change the canister/absorber before the flush, you can flush the machine without a contaminated CO2 absorber continually releasing retained volatile anesthetics into the circuit. However, the new absorbent may accumulate and retain additional volatile during the flushing process.
Conversely, if the canister and absorber are changed at the end of the flush you can be sure the new absorbent has no retained volatile. However, I would think that flushing the machine with contaminated absorbent is inefficient.
Probably as propadope suggested - it may be best to empty any old absorber from the CO2 canister prior. Then put the old, but now empty canister on the machine and start the flush. This would prevent old absorbent front continually releasing any retained volatile into the circuit. Once the flush is finished, put a new canister with fresh absorber on the machine.
Every place can afford them. They are recommended by MHAUS, and almost standard of care in an M.H. crisis with modern machines that take a long time to remove volatile agents.I just use a pair of these. Pretty nice if your place can afford them.![]()
D
deleted87051
You still FILL your CO2 canisters? Ours are all pre-filled from the manufacturer.I certainly do plan on following manufacturer recommendations, but I wonder if it even matters. I have seen it done both ways at various institutions. Biomed at my current institution disagrees with the manufacturer and the manufacturer cannot seem to give me any data/explanation to support their recommendations. Also I am not sure that a 40 minute flush at 15L/min would be enough to desiccate an absorber and render it ineffective.
On one hand if you change the canister/absorber before the flush, you can flush the machine without a contaminated CO2 absorber continually releasing retained volatile anesthetics into the circuit. However, the new absorbent may accumulate and retain additional volatile during the flushing process.
Conversely, if the canister and absorber are changed at the end of the flush you can be sure the new absorbent has no retained volatile. However, I would think that flushing the machine with contaminated absorbent is inefficient.
Probably as propadope suggested - it may be best to empty any old absorber from the CO2 canister prior. Then put the old, but now empty canister on the machine and start the flush. This would prevent old absorbent front continually releasing any retained volatile into the circuit. Once the flush is finished, put a new canister with fresh absorber on the machine.
I would certainly follow the manufacturer's recommendations on prepping a machine for an potential MH patient. I would ignore recommendations to the contrary from anyone in the Biomed department.
And we put the orange filters on in addition to the machine flush. 🙂
We go through th
Every place can afford them. They are recommended by MHAUS, and almost standard of care in an M.H. crisis with modern machines that take a long time to remove volatile agents.
I meter my comments as this site has an international participation base.