• Rezan Şerefoğlu, Havva Kocayiğit, Onur Palabıyık, and Ayça Taş Tuna.
• Faculty of Medicine, Anesthesiology and Reanimation Depertmant, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey. rezzan.ozcalimli@gmail.com.
• J Clin Monit Comput. 2024 Oct 1; 38 (5): 111711231117-1123.

PurposeNew-generation anesthesia machines administer inhalation anesthetics and automatically control the fresh gas flow (FGF) rate. This study compared the administration of minimal flow anesthesia (MFA) using the automatically controlled anesthesia (ACA) module of the Mindray A9 (Shenzhen, China) anesthesia machine versus manual control by an anesthesiologist.MethodsWe randomly divided 76 patients undergoing gynecological surgery into an ACA group (Group ACA) and a manually controlled anesthesia group (Group MCA). In Group MCA, induction was performed with a mixture of 40-60% O2 and air with a 4 L/min FGF until the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) reached 1. Next, MFA was initiated with 0.5 L/min FGF. The target fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) value was 35-40%. In Group ACA, the MAC was defined as 1, and the FiO2 was adjusted to 35%. Depth of anesthesia, anesthetic agent (AA) consumption, time to achieve target end-tidal AA concentration, awakening times, and number of ventilator adjustments were analyzed.ResultsThe two groups showed no statistically significant differences in depth of anesthesia or AA consumption (Group ACA: 19.1 ± 4.9 ml; Group MCA: 17.2 ± 4.5; p-value = 0.076). The ACA mode achieved the MAC target of 1 significantly faster (Group ACA: 218 ± 51 s; Group MCA: 314 ± 169 s). The number of vaporizer adjustments was 15 in the ACA group and 217 in the MCA group.ConclusionThe ACA mode was more advantageous than the MCA mode, reaching target AA concentrations faster and requiring fewer adjustments to achieve a constant depth of anesthesia.© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

26 keywords...

hide…