ABSTRACT
This was a prospective study comparing the cost implications between two carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbers, soda lime (Intersurgical) and AMSORB® PLUS. The study was conducted over two 4-week periods in two dedicated operating theatres using Datex Ohmeda Aestiva/5 anaesthetic machines. AMSORB® PLUS was used during the first four weeks and soda lime (Intersurgical) the following four weeks. General anaesthesia was administered as routinely done but fresh gas flow (FGF) during the maintenance phase was limited to a maximum flow of 2 L/min. The CO2 absorber was only changed when there was evidence of exhaustion. Total duration of anaesthesia, sevoflurane (bottles) and CO2 absorber (kg) consumption, and amount of waste product (kg) was calculated at the end of each study period. The total cost of delivering general anaesthesia was lower in the AMSORB® PLUS group, RM82.40 (USD19.89)/hour versus the soda lime group, RM91.50 (USD 22.09)/hour (p=0.17), which translates to a 10% reduction in cost per hour. Reduction in sevoflurane consumption in the AMSORB® PLUS compared to the soda lime group was also not statistically significant (p=0.22). The only significant finding was the reduction in CO2 absorber consumption in the AMSORB® PLUS group as compared to soda lime group (p=0.001). In conclusion, AMSORB® PLUS consumption was significantly reduced compared to that of soda lime. However, the use of AMSORB® PLUS did not significantly reduce sevoflurane consumption nor the total cost of delivering general anaesthesia. Given the superior safety profile, AMSORB® PLUS may be a suitable, cost-effective alternative to soda lime in the daily practice of anaesthesia.
Subject(s)
Sodium HydroxideABSTRACT
Anaesthesiology is a specialty which is less well known and the public usually have little knowledge regarding anaesthesia and the roles of Anaesthesiologist. Many hospitals now use a single dedicated consent for anaesthesia. This study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of a single consent for anaesthesia with the combined surgical and anaesthetic consent. A total of 109 patients, scheduled for elective surgery requiring anaesthesia were interviewed with a standardised questionnaire. Patients were divided into two groups, where one group used a single anaesthetic consent while the other used a combined surgical and anaesthetic consent. A single consent for anaesthesia was found to be more effective than the current combined surgical and anaesthetic consent (p<0.05). Regarding information about anaesthesia, 89.91% respondents agreed that the Anaesthesiologist should tell them all material risks of anaesthesia, no matter how serious it is and 81.65% respondents would like to meet Anaesthesiologist every time prior to the operation. In terms of knowledge, 94.5% patients recognized that Anaesthesiologist is the one who delivers anaesthesia during surgery. However, patients had little knowledge regarding the extended roles of Anaesthesiologist. The present study confirmed that a single consent for anaesthesia was better than the current combined surgical and anaesthetic consent.