• Carlos E Guerra-Londono, Franklin Dexter, John D Mitchell, Patrick B Forrest, and Donald H Penning.
• Anesthesiology, Pain Management, & Perioperative Medicine, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, USA. Electronic address: Cguerra1@hfhs.org.
• J Clin Anesth. 2024 Mar 6; 95: 111441111441.

Study ObjectiveTo examine the effects of a non-reactive carbon dioxide absorbent (AMSORB® Plus) versus a traditional carbon dioxide absorbent (Medisorb™) on the FGF used by anesthesia providers and an electronic educational feedback intervention using Carestation™ Insights (GE HealthCare) on provider-specific change in FGF.DesignProspective, single-center cohort study set in a greening initiative.SettingOperating room.Participants157 anesthesia providers (i.e., anesthesiology trainees, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and solo anesthesiologists).InterventionsIntervention #1 was the introduction of AMSORB® Plus into 8 Aisys CS2, Carestation™ Insights-enabled anesthesia machines (GE HealthCare) at the study site. At the end of week 6, anesthesia providers were educated and given an environmentally oriented electronic feedback strategy for the next 12 weeks of the study (Intervention #2) using Carestation™ Insights data.MeasurementsThe dual primary outcomes were the difference in average daily FGF during maintenance anesthesia between machines assigned to AMSORB® Plus versus Medisorb™ and the provider-specific change in average fresh gas flows after 12 weeks of feedback and education compared to the historical data.Main ResultsOver the 18-week period, there were 1577 inhaled anesthetics performed in the 8 operating rooms (528 for intervention 1, 1049 for intervention 2). There were 1001 provider days using Aisys CS2 machines and 7452 provider days of historical data from the preceding year. Overall, AMSORB® Plus was not associated with significantly less FGF (mean - 80 ml/min, 97.5% confidence interval - 206 to 46, P = .15). The environmentally oriented electronic feedback intervention was not associated with a significant decrease in provider-specific mean FGF (-112 ml/min, 97.5% confidence interval - 244 to 21, P = .059).ConclusionsThis study showed that introducing a non-reactive absorbent did not significantly alter FGF. Using environmentally oriented electronic feedback relying on data analytics did not result in significantly reduced provider-specific FGF.Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

6 keywords...

hide…