Carbon Footprint of General, Regional, and Combined Anesthesia for Total Knee Replacements

被引:97
作者
McGain, Forbes [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Sheridan, Nicole [1 ,2 ]
Wickramarachchi, Kasun [1 ,2 ]
Yates, Simon [1 ,2 ]
Chan, Brandon [1 ,2 ]
McAlister, Scott [3 ]
机构
[1] Western Hlth, Dept Anaesthesia, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Western Hlth, Dept Intens Care, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Univ Melbourne, Dept Crit Care, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Univ Sydney, Sch Publ Heath, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS; BREATHING CIRCUITS; GLOBAL CLIMATE; SUSTAINABILITY; IMPACT; CRADLE;
D O I
10.1097/ALN.0000000000003967
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background: Health care itself contributes to climate change. Anesthesia is a "carbon hotspot," yet few data exist to compare anesthetic choices. The authors examined the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions associated with general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia, and combined (general and spinal anesthesia) during a total knee replacement. Methods: A prospective life cycle assessment of 10 patients in each of three groups undergoing knee replacements was conducted in Melbourne, Australia. The authors collected input data for anesthetic items, gases, and drugs, and electricity for patient warming and anesthetic machine. Sevoflurane or propofol was used for general anesthesia. Life cycle assessment software was used to convert inputs to their carbon footprint (in kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent emissions), with modeled international comparisons. Results: Twenty-nine patients were studied. The carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for general anesthesia were an average 14.9 (95% CI, 9.7 to 22.5) kg carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; spinal anesthesia, 16.9 (95% CI, 13.2 to 20.5) kg carbon dioxide equivalent; and for combined anesthesia, 18.5 (95% CI, 12.5 to 27.3) kg carbon dioxide equivalent. Major sources of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions across all approaches were as follows: electricity for the patient air warmer (average at least 2.5 kg carbon dioxide equivalent [20% total]), single-use items, 3.6 (general anesthesia), 3.4 (spinal), and 4.3 (combined) kg carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, respectively (approximately 25% total). For the general anesthesia and combined groups, sevoflurane contributed an average 4.7 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (35% total) and 3.1 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (19%), respectively. For spinal and combined, washing and sterilizing reusable items contributed 4.5 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (29% total) and 4.1 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (24%) emissions, respectively. Oxygen use was important to the spinal anesthetic carbon footprint (2.8 kg carbon dioxide equivalent, 18%). Modeling showed that intercountry carbon dioxide equivalent emission variability was less than intragroup variability (minimum/maximum). Conclusions: All anesthetic approaches had similar carbon footprints (desflurane and nitrous oxide were not used for general anesthesia). Rather than spinal being a default low carbon approach, several choices determine the final carbon footprint: using low-flow anesthesia/total intravenous anesthesia, reducing single-use plastics, reducing oxygen flows, and collaborating with engineers to augment energy efficiency/renewable electricity.
引用
收藏
页码:976 / 991
页数:16
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]   Comparing the environmental impact of inhalational anaesthesia and propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia [J].
Allen, C. ;
Baxter, I. .
ANAESTHESIA, 2021, 76 (06) :862-863
[2]   Assessing the Impact on Global Climate from General Anesthetic Gases [J].
Andersen, Mads P. Sulbaek ;
Nielsen, Ole J. ;
Wallington, Timothy J. ;
Karpichev, Boris ;
Sander, Stanley P. .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2012, 114 (05) :1081-1085
[3]  
Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists ( ANZCA), 2015, PS28 GUID INF CONTR
[4]  
Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, 2019, NAT GREENH ACC FACT
[5]   An Initial Evaluation of a Novel Anesthetic Scavenging Interface [J].
Barwise, John A. ;
Lancaster, Leland J. ;
Michaels, Damon ;
Pope, Jason E. ;
Berry, James M. .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2011, 113 (05) :1064-1067
[6]   Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US [J].
Campion, Nicole ;
Thiel, Cassandra L. ;
DeBlois, Justin ;
Woods, Noe C. ;
Landis, Amy E. ;
Bilec, Melissa M. .
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2012, 425 :191-198
[7]   Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent [J].
Ciroth, Andreas ;
Muller, Stephanie ;
Weidema, Bo ;
Lesage, Pascal .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2016, 21 (09) :1338-1348
[8]   Bacterial and viral contamination of breathing circuits after extended use - an aspect of patient safety? [J].
Dubler, S. ;
Zimmermann, S. ;
Fischer, M. ;
Schnitzler, P. ;
Bruckner, T. ;
Weigand, M. A. ;
Frank, U. ;
Hofer, S. ;
Heininger, A. .
ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2016, 60 (09) :1251-1260
[9]   Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Disposable and Reusable Laryngeal Mask Airways [J].
Eckelman, Matthew ;
Mosher, Margo ;
Gonzalez, Andres ;
Sherman, Jodi .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2012, 114 (05) :1067-1072
[10]   Environmental Impacts of the US Health Care System and Effects on Public Health [J].
Eckelman, Matthew J. ;
Sherman, Jodi .
PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (06)