What Automatic Gas Control does
When patients are at their most vulnerable, Automatic Gas Control (AGC®) gives you visibility, control and precision to provide low- and minimal-flow anesthesia. Safe, cost-effective and convenient, AGC is engineered to improve forecasting and control of anesthetic agents during the induction and emergence of anesthesia.
How Automatic Gas Control works
Automatic Gas Control (AGC) facilitates the control of oxygen delivery in all anesthesia situations by a single FIO2 target setting. This FIO2 target setting has priority and is unaffected by anesthetic agent speed selection, reducing the risk of hypoxia.
AGC lets you adapt administration of agent to the patient’s status or surgical incision time, and reduces the risk of under- or overdosing.
AGC also features a unique EtAA speed control and prediction tool displayed in real time, which allows clinicians to determine time to end-tidal target, thus allowing more efficient gas delivery.
Reducing the environmental footprint and being a more cost-effective OR
Excess consumption of anesthetic agent drives cost. Hospital funds are lost unnecessarily – and the negative environmental impact is considerable.
Our Automatic Gas Control addresses both problems. It enables safe low-flow anesthesia with minimal agent consumption, saving cost and reducing the climate footprint.
Customer voices on AGC for low-flow anesthesia
"42% volatile agent savings with AGC"
Learn how Belfast hospital realized they could substantially reduce their agent consumption with AGC.
"AGC was an absolutely amazing experience, with no comparison to it."
Professor Sanuki, Hiroshima University Hospital Japan, shares his impressions.
“AGC buys us time to care for the patient, as well as time to document the patient recordings.”
Staff share their impressions after AGC was installed on 60 of their Flow-i anesthesia machines.
Free up more time for your patients
AGC can be prepared during standby or manual ventilation. Once the airway is secured, simply switch to AGC and adjust speed and end-tidal anesthetic agent concentration accordingly. AGC removes the need for continuous manual adjustments of FGF, O2 and AA during cases, giving you more time to focus on other responsibilities during the most intense phases of your work.
More unique innovations for our anesthesia machines
With our flow anesthesia technology you can easily ensure the perfect flow for each patient, finetuning anaesthesia delivery in real time, breath by breath.
Flow-i anesthesia machine
- featuring Automatic Gas Control
Flow-i is the intelligent workstation, a highly advanced anesthesia machine offering superior ventilation performance, decision support features, a wider range of settings of flows and pressures, and the innovative AGC option. Flow-i provides safe, personalized and cost-efficient care,also for the most challenging patients. Available in three versions, it’s a dynamic solution, including a heightadjustable model, and a pendant model suspended from the ceiling.
Internal report EVU-197031 - 01 - Flow 4.7 Enhanced Post Market Surveillance Report 2019
Getinge case story MX-7418, rev01: Agent savings with Flow-i AGC at Maria Middelare hospital, Belgium.
Lucangelo U, Garufi G, Marras E, et al. End-tidal versus manually-controlled low-flow anaesthesia. J Clin Monit Comput. 2014; 28: 117-121
Brattwall M, Warrén-Stomberg M, Hesselvik F, Jakobsson J. Brief review: Theory and practice of minimal fresh gas flow anesthesia. Can J Anaesth. 2012 Aug;59(8):785-97.
M. Bilgi, S. Goksu, A. Mizrak, et al. Comparison of the effects of low-flow and high-flow inhalational anaesthesia with nitrous oxide and desflurane on mucociliary activity and pulmonary function tests, Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011;28:279–283
Ryan SM, Nielsen CJ.Global Warming Potential of Inhaled Anesthetics: Application to clinical Use. Anesth Analg.2010 Jul;111(07): 92–98.
Hendrickx JF, De Wolf AM, De Hert S. O2, anybody? Eur J Anaesth 2015, 32:371–373.
Ghijselings IE, De Cooman S, Carette R, et al. Performance of an active inspired hypoxic guard. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016 Feb;30(1):63-8t.