EBME Forums Forums Maintenance Technical Assistance Anesthesia Machines Evaluation\ Technical Feedback

Hello Everyone,

My Anesthesia department is currently in the process of evaluating the following 4 different Anesthesia machine manufacturers, which are as follows:

1. Mindray - A5
2. Drager - Apollo
3. Ge Datex-Ohmed - Acsys
4. Maquet - Flow i-C20/C30

Since this is my first time evaluating anesthesia machines I would really appreciate everyone one's help with you suggestions and comments.

Furthermore does anyone of you have a specific evaluation form in excel or word specifically focused on Anesthesia machines.

Has anyone had any experience with the above models? What pros and cons have you encountered from the user's and technical perspective of the systems above.?

Your input, suggestions, advice, evaluation forms would have a positive impact in selecting the right system.

You can also contact me at rajahtm@mail.nih.gov via e-mail.

Thank you

Tim

Hi Tim,

We have 87 drager Primus (apollo) and we are very happy with them. From a maintenance and service point of view they are engineer friendly and have a good user interface (fault finding etc)and are relativley reliable, the most common fault we get is the gas bench failing on CO2, although with software and hardware upgrades this is become less frequent. You do need to have a service laptop which adds to the annual service costs but does help greatly with access to Drager support.

A few things to check on machines:

.Modes of ventilation available
.Types of gas sampling (some have built in units, seperate may be better if you need to swap out for repair/service)
.Cleaning/decontamination schedules (the apollo breathing system needs to be decontaminated on a weekly basis, we don't do this due to the numbers we have but it is something to consider)
.User interface, this should be easy to navigate for both technical and clinical staff.
.Service costs (obviously)
.future proofing, will the unit be able to do what you need now and more for the future?
. MAC, some machines have the ability to calculate the MAC, this has become a big issue with our trust.
.

Hope this helps for now.

Rob

Hello Rob,
So nice of you to respond, much appreciated. which current software version are you currently at on your Drager Primus (Apollo) Anesthesia machines?

The service laptop that you mentioned earlier did you mean the Service tool software or service laptop with the tool software included?

Did you mean MAC by "Monitored Anesthesia Care" or does it stand for something else?

Do you by any chance have an evaluation form that you use or used for the assessment for the Anesthesia machines?

Thank you,

regards
Tim

MAC ... hope you don't mind me butting in.

http://www.heyermedical.de/en/medical/anesthesia.html

good machines and low price...

Hello jevremko,
Thanks for the weblink but these machines are not FDA approved. Without FDA approval it would be hard for us to reconsider or evaluate.

Thanks anyways..

ok Timsta!

Hi Timsta,
we run a trial / evaluation sheet that gets quantifyable feedback in an easy form from all partys concerned. That way you dont buy something that in 6 months time several senior clinicians turn arround and say i told you that was rubbish. Equally we include the folk that are going to maintain it and the staff at shop floor level who are going to be involved with the kit.

Hi Tim,

Our machines are mostly SW level 4.30, there are plans to upgrade our older machines to this level in the near future.
The service tool/laptop depends on location I think. We started out with our own laptop with service software installed and paid an anual fee for the licence. We now have to 'rent' a drager laptop with all the necessary software/tools installed. The tools are also used on other drager products, for this reason we now 'rent' 2 laptops due to the large number of devices we have.

As Geoff states, MAC stands for minimum alveolar concentration, it can get a bit complicated to explain in depth but clinicans will probably be interested in this. In simple terms it is the minimum concentration of agent at which the patient will not respond when an incision is made.

We don't have a specific evaluation form, but a good starting point would be to get all the stakeholders together (anyone who will have anything at all to do with the machines) and find out what each group requires, it may be necessary to carry out a number of seperate evaluations from differenct perspectives (maintenance, clinical suitability, infection control,supplies/finance etc) the results of each of these evaluations can then be discussed and used to generaly evaluate the machines.

It will probably be a long & complicated process but as KM states, don't give anyone an excuse to say they wern't asked.

Hope this helps a little.

Rob

Here's a slightly different approach (and one which I would recommend) ... why not let the medics select their own kit?

Just as long as the biomeds make sure that their voice is heard regarding the requirements of tech support. Then later on, when disappointment emerges, it can be them (the biomeds) who will be able to say "I told you so"!

Here are a couple of "debating points":-

1) There's probably nothing much wrong with the existing kit anyway.
2) Someone senior will be pushing for a particular manufacturer or new technology.
3) Why should biomeds waste time on (what is often) just going through the motions?
4) The medics "must have" the kit ... so let them do the donkey work!
5) Let the medics carry the can for their own decisions.
6) If something they "didn't want" is "forced" upon them - you'll never hear the last of their complaints (whether real or imagined).

Doing it "my way" ... the biomeds avoid carrying "the blame" for the next ten or fifteen years. The surgeons and the anaesthetists et al take the Big Bucks, attend all the junkets and "seminars", bask in the kudos, and all the rest ... so let them carry the responsibility. After all, it's them that have to use the kit day in, day out.

Meanwhile, our lot is to keep our heads down, hide in the back corridors and basements, endeavour to provide tech support, and try to fix the kit when it all goes down the pan later on.