End-Tidal Control Versus Manual Control of Inhalational Anesthesia Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial
An erratum to this article was published (Anesth Analg, 1 Apr 2025 ↗)
Authors' conclusion
EtC achieves and maintains the EtAA and Et o2 concentration in a manner that is noninferior to manually controlled anesthesia delivery.
Study context
- Population
- Adults receiving inhaled anesthesia
- Participants
- 210 adults
- Comparison
- End-tidal Control vs manual control of inhalational anesthetic delivery
- Primary endpoint
- EtC achieves and maintains clinician-specified EtAA and EtO2 concentrations within defined noninferiority limits vs conventional practice (percent duration within acceptable range; noninferiority if lower 95% CI limit of difference ≥ −5% for both)
Methodological detailsnoninferiority, multi-site
- Noninferiority
- Multi-site
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
EtC vs MCDifference, % (95% CI)P value
EtAA
52.3(45.9%–58.6%)
P < 0.0001EtO2
45.3(36.1%–54.5%)
P < 0.0001Dotted line: non-inferiority margin −5
Secondary outcomes
Response time to 90% of initial desired EtAA
P = 0.0013
| Outcome | Difference (%) (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (median percent deviation from desired EtAA) | 15.7 (13.5%–19.0%) | P < 0001 | |
| −1001020Difference, % (linear scale) |
| Outcome | EtC | MC |
|---|---|---|
| Overshoot of selected EtAA | median 6.64% of selected EtAA concentration | — not stated in the abstract |
— not stated in the abstract
Overshoot of selected end-tidal anesthetic agent (EtAA)
- Manual control (MC) often failed to reach the clinician's desired value
Original publication
End-Tidal Control Versus Manual Control of Inhalational Anesthesia Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial. Anesth Analg. Published 19 July 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →