首页> 外文期刊>BMC Anesthesiology >Can modern infrared analyzers replace gas chromatography to measure anesthetic vapor concentrations?
【24h】

Can modern infrared analyzers replace gas chromatography to measure anesthetic vapor concentrations?

机译:现代红外分析仪能否代替气相色谱仪来测量麻醉剂蒸气浓度?

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Gas chromatography (GC) has often been considered the most accurate method to measure the concentration of inhaled anesthetic vapors. However, infrared (IR) gas analysis has become the clinically preferred monitoring technique because it provides continuous data, is less expensive and more practical, and is readily available. We examined the accuracy of a modern IR analyzer (M-CAiOV compact gas IR analyzer (General Electric, Helsinki, Finland) by comparing its performance with GC. Methods To examine linearity, we analyzed 3 different concentrations of 3 different agents in O2: 0.3, 0.7, and 1.2% isoflurane; 0.5, 1, and 2% sevoflurane; and 1, 3, and 6% desflurane. To examine the effect of carrier gas composition, we prepared mixtures of 1% isoflurane, 1 or 2% sevoflurane, or 6% desflurane in 100% O2 (= O2 group); 30%O2+ 70%N2O (= N2O group), 28%O2 + 66%N2O + 5%CO2 (= CO2 group), or air. To examine consistency between analyzers, four different M-CAiOV analyzers were tested. Results The IR analyzer response in O2 is linear over the concentration range studied: IR isoflurane % = -0.0256 + (1.006 * GC %), R = 0.998; IR sevoflurane % = -0.008 + (0.946 * GC %), R = 0.993; and IR desflurane % = 0.256 + (0.919 * GC %), R = 0.998. The deviation from GC calculated as (100*(IR-GC)/GC), in %) ranged from -11 to 11% for the medium and higher concentrations, and from -20 to +20% for the lowest concentrations. No carrier gas effect could be detected. Individual modules differed in their accuracy (p = 0.004), with differences between analyzers mounting up to 12% of the medium and highest concentrations and up to 25% of the lowest agent concentrations. Conclusion M-CAiOV compact gas IR analyzers are well compensated for carrier gas cross-sensitivity and are linear over the range of concentrations studied. IR and GC cannot be used interchangeably, because the deviations between GC and IR mount up to ± 20%, and because individual analyzers differ unpredictably in their performance.
机译:背景技术气相色谱法(GC)通常被认为是测量吸入麻醉蒸气浓度的最准确方法。但是,红外(IR)气体分析已成为临床上首选的监视技术,因为它可以提供连续的数据,更便宜,更实用并且易于使用。通过将其与气相色谱仪的性能进行比较,我们检验了现代红外分析仪(M-CAiOV紧凑型气体红外分析仪(通用电气,赫尔辛基,芬兰)的准确性。方法为了检验线性,我们分析了O 2 :0.3%,0.7%和1.2%的异氟烷​​; 0.5%,1%和2%的七氟醚;以及1,3%和6%的地氟烷为了检验载气成分的影响,我们制备了1%的混合物100%O 2 (= O 2 组)中的异氟烷,1或2%七氟醚或6%地氟醚; 30%O 2 + 70%N 2 O(= N 2 O组),28%O 2 + 66%N 2 O + 5%CO 2 (= CO 2 组)或空气为了检查分析仪之间的一致性,测试了四种不同的M-CAiOV分析仪。在研究的浓度范围内,O 2 中的线性:IR异氟烷%= -0.0256 +(1.006 * GC%),R = 0.998; IR七氟醚%= -0.008 +(0.946 * GC%), R = 0.993; IR地氟醚%= 0 .256 +(0.919 * GC%),R = 0.998。对于中等浓度和较高浓度,与GC的偏差计算为(100 *(IR-GC)/ GC),以%计,范围为-11至11%,对于最低浓度,其偏差为-20至+ 20%。无法检测到载气效应。各个模块的准确度有所不同(p = 0.004),分析仪之间的差异最多可安装12%的中等浓度和最高浓度,最高25%的最低试剂浓度。结论M-CAiOV紧凑型气体红外分析仪对载气的交叉敏感度得到了很好的补偿,并且在所研究的浓度范围内呈线性关系。 IR和GC不能互换使用,因为GC和IR之间的偏差高达±20%,并且各个分析仪的性能差异都无法预测。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号