British journal of anaesthesia · 2025
Photoacoustic detection of propofol in breath gas for monitoring depth of anaesthesia: from bench to bedside.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Meidert Agnes S, Rucz Péter, Angster Judit, Esser Joseph, Miklós András, Schelling Gustav
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ensuring adequate depth of i.v. anaesthesia by measuring propofol in breath gas could increase patient safety. Mass spectrometry, representing the reference standard of propofol breath gas measurements, is not feasible in routine clinical practice; hence, a photoacoustic sensor was developed.
METHODS: The photoacoustic sensor quantifies propofol concentration in gas via the sound waves emitted by propofol molecules excited by light of specific wavelength and frequency. We studied the performance of the new sensor in propofol test gas, gas sampling bags filled with breath gas from different patients, and performed real-time measurements in patients undergoing propofol anaesthesia in comparison to ion-molecule reaction mass spectrometry.
RESULTS: In test gas, photoacoustic and mass spectrometry correlated with an R2 of 0.9975 in a range from 2.5 to 60 ppb. In gas sampling bags, propofol could be detected with both methods. Bland-Altman analysis of propofol general anaesthesia over 18 h in 10 patients revealed a mean propofol difference of -0.02 ppb (standard deviation 3.31) between mass spectrometry and photoacoustic measurements in breath gas, ranging from 4 to 47 ppb.
CONCLUSIONS: Photoacoustic measurement of propofol concentration in breath gas is feasible with high accuracy in clinical applications.
METHODS: The photoacoustic sensor quantifies propofol concentration in gas via the sound waves emitted by propofol molecules excited by light of specific wavelength and frequency. We studied the performance of the new sensor in propofol test gas, gas sampling bags filled with breath gas from different patients, and performed real-time measurements in patients undergoing propofol anaesthesia in comparison to ion-molecule reaction mass spectrometry.
RESULTS: In test gas, photoacoustic and mass spectrometry correlated with an R2 of 0.9975 in a range from 2.5 to 60 ppb. In gas sampling bags, propofol could be detected with both methods. Bland-Altman analysis of propofol general anaesthesia over 18 h in 10 patients revealed a mean propofol difference of -0.02 ppb (standard deviation 3.31) between mass spectrometry and photoacoustic measurements in breath gas, ranging from 4 to 47 ppb.
CONCLUSIONS: Photoacoustic measurement of propofol concentration in breath gas is feasible with high accuracy in clinical applications.