Use of the MIRUS™ system for general anaesthesia during surgery: a comparison of isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane

  • Martin Bellgardt
  • Dominik Drees
  • Vladimir Vinnikov
  • Livia Procopiuc
  • Andreas Meiser
  • Hagen Bomberg
  • Philipp Gude
  • Heike Vogelsang
  • Thomas Peter Weber
  • Jennifer Herzog-Niescery
Original Research
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

The MIRUS™ system enables automated end-expired control of volatile anaesthetics. The device is positioned between the Y-piece of the breathing system and the patient’s airway. The system has been tested in vitro and to provide sedation in the ICU with end-expired concentrations up to 0.5 MAC. We describe its performance in a clinical setting with concentrations up to 1.0 MAC. In 63 ASA II–III patients undergoing elective hip or knee replacement surgery, the MIRUS™ was set to keep the end-expired desflurane, sevoflurane, or isoflurane concentration at 1 MAC while ventilating the patient with the PB-840 ICU ventilator. After 1 h, the ventilation mode was switched from controlled to support mode. Time to 0.5 and 1 MAC, agent usage, and emergence times, work of breathing, and feasibility were assessed. In 60 out of 63 patients 1.0 MAC could be reached and remained constant during surgery. Gas consumption was as follows: desflurane (41.7 ± 7.9 ml h−1), sevoflurane (24.3 ± 4.8 ml h−1) and isoflurane (11.2 ± 3.3 ml h−1). Extubation was faster after desflurane use (min:sec): desflurane 5:27 ± 1:59; sevoflurane 6:19 ± 2:56; and isoflurane 9:31 ± 6:04. The support mode was well tolerated. The MIRUS™ system reliable delivers 1.0 MAC of the modern inhaled agents, both during mechanical ventilation and spontaneous (assisted) breathing. Agent usage is highest with desflurane (highest MAC) but results in the fastest emergence. Trial registry number: Clinical Trials Registry, ref.: NCT0234509.

Keywords

Inhalation drug administration Isoflurane Sevoflurane Desflurane 

Notes

Author contributions

MB: study design, experimental setup, statistical analysis, writing up the first draft of the manuscript, study coordinator and guarantor. DD: experimental setup, data collection. VV: study design, data collection. LP: writing up the first draft of the manuscript, review and editing. BJ: data collection. AM: study design, experimental setup, interpretation of data. HB: interpretation of data. HV: patient recruitment, review and editing of the manuscript. PG: patient recruitment, study design, experimental setup, data analysis. TPW: study design, review and editing of the manuscript. JH-N: study design, statistical analysis, writing up the first draft of the manuscript, review and editing. All authors have read and approved the final draft. All authors had full access to all the data and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Bellgardt und Herzog-Niescery received speakers honoraria from Pall Medical, Dreieich, Germany. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bomberg H, Glas M, Groesdonk VH, et al. A novel device for target controlled administration and reflection of desflurane—the Mirus™. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:1241–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nishiyama T, Kohno Y, Ozaki M, Koishi K. Usefulness of an anesthetic conserving device (AnaConDa™) in sevoflurane anesthesia. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012;78:310–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beloncle F, Akoumianaki E, Rittayamai N, Lyazidi A, Brochard L. Accuracy of delivered airway pressure and work of breathing estimation during proportional assist ventilation: a bench study. Ann Intensiv Care. 2016;6:30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chabanne R, Perbet S, Futier E, et al. Impact of the anesthetic conserving device on respiratory parameters and work of breathing in critically ill patients under light sedation with sevoflurane. Anesthesiology. 2014;121:808–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bomberg H, Groesdonk HV, Bellgardt M, Volk T, Meiser A. AnaConDa™ and Mirus™ for intensive care sedation, 24 h desflurane versus isoflurane in one patient. SpringerPlus. 2016;5:420.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Romagnoli S, Chelazzi C, Villa G, et al. The new MIRUS system for short-term sedation in postsurgical ICU patients. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:925–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Bellgardt
    • 1
  • Dominik Drees
    • 1
  • Vladimir Vinnikov
    • 1
  • Livia Procopiuc
    • 1
  • Andreas Meiser
    • 2
  • Hagen Bomberg
    • 2
  • Philipp Gude
    • 1
  • Heike Vogelsang
    • 1
  • Thomas Peter Weber
    • 1
  • Jennifer Herzog-Niescery
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, St. Josef HospitalRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain MedicineSaarland University Medical CenterHomburg/SaarGermany

Personalised recommendations