This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hendrickx, J. F. A. Articles by De Wolf, A. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hendrickx, J. F. A. Articles by De Wolf, A. M. Related Collections Technology

---

TECHNOLOGY, COMPUTING, AND SIMULATION

The ADU Vaporizing Unit: A New Vaporizer

Jan F. A. Hendrickx, MD^*, Sofie De Cooman, MD^*, Thierry Deloof, MD^*, Dirk Vandeput, MD^*, José Coddens, MD^*, and Andre M. De Wolf, MD

*Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Onze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis, Aalst, Belgium; and Department of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois

Address correspondence to Andre M. De Wolf, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University Medical School, 251 E. Huron St., Passavant 360, Chicago, IL 60611-3053. Address e-mail to a-dewolf{at}nwu.edu

We determined the performance of the vaporizer of the ADU machine (Anesthesia Delivery Unit; Datex-Ohmeda, Helsinki, Finland). The effects of carrier gas composition (oxygen, oxygen/N₂O mixture, and air) and fresh gas flow (0.2 to 10 L/min) on vaporizer performance were examined with variable concentrations of isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane across the whole range of each vaporizer’s output. In addition, the effects of sudden changes in fresh gas flow and carrier gas composition, back pressure, flushing, and tipping were assessed. Vaporizer output depended on fresh gas flow, carrier gas composition, dial settings, and the drug used. Vaporizer output remained within 10% of dial setting with fresh gas flows of 0.3–10 L/min for isoflurane, within 10% of dial setting with fresh gas flows of 0.5–5 L/min for sevoflurane, and within 13% of dial setting with fresh gas flows of 0.5 to 1 L/min for desflurane. Outside these fresh gas flow ranges, output deviated more. The effect of sudden changes in fresh gas flow or carrier gas composition, back pressure, flushing, and tipping was minimal. We conclude that the ADU vaporizer performs well under most clinical conditions. Despite a different design and the use of complex algorithms to improve accuracy, the same physical factors affecting the performance of conventional vaporizers also affect the ADU vaporizer.

IMPLICATIONS: The ADU vaporizer performs well under most clinical conditions. Despite a different design and the use of complex algorithms to improve accuracy, the same physical factors affecting the performance of conventional vaporizers also affect the ADU vaporizer.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M.-P. L. A. Bouche, L. F. M. Versichelen, M. M. R. F. Struys, J. F. P. Van Bocxlaer, A. P. De Leenheer, E. P. Mortier, and G. Rolly No Compound A Formation with Superia(R) During Minimal-Flow Sevoflurane Anesthesia: A Comparison with Sofnolime(R) Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2002; 95(6): 1680 - 1685. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]