• Samar Taha, Mohamad El-Khatib, Sahar Siddik-Sayyid, Carla Dagher, Jules-Marie Chehade, and Anis Baraka.
• Department of Anesthesiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, P.O. Box 11 0236 Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
• Can J Anaesth. 2007 Feb 1;54(2):141-5.

PurposeThis study investigates the efficacy of preoxygenation with Mapleson A and Mapleson D breathing systems vs the circle system with CO2 absorber.MethodsThirteen healthy volunteers underwent tidal volume breathing for three minutes via facemask using Mapleson A, Mapleson D breathing systems or the circle system with CO2 absorber while breathing 100% O2 at flow rates of 5 L.min-1 and 10 L.min-1. Each volunteer acted as his/her own control by going through each of six preoxygenation protocols in random order. Fractional end-tidal O2 concentration (FETO2) was measured at 30-sec intervals. The results were compared among the three anesthesia systems at the two fresh gas flow rates.ResultsAt a fresh gas flow rate of 5 L.min-1, the Mapleson A and circle systems achieved F(ETO2) values of 90.8+/-1.4% and 90.0+/-1.1%, respectively, compared with the lower F(ETO2) (81.5+/-6.3%, P<0.05), achieved with the Mapleson D system. When breathing O2 at 10 L.min-1, the F(ETO2) values after three minutes were similar with the Mapleson A, circle, and Mapleson D breathing systems (91.8+/-2.3%, 91.2+/-1.7%, 90.6+/-2.7%, respectively).ConclusionWhen using the Mapleson A and the circle systems for preoxygenation, an oxygen flow rate of 5 L.min-1 can adequately preoxygenate the patient within three minutes, while an oxygen flow of 10 L.min-1 is required to achieve a similar fractional end-tidal O2 concentration with the Mapleson D system.

16 keywords...

hide…