The carbon footprint of the operating room related to infection prevention measures: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Infection prevention measures are widely used in operating rooms (ORs). However, the extent to which they are at odds with ambitions to reduce the health sector's carbon footprint remains unclear.

AIM

To synthesize the evidence base for the carbon footprint of commonly used infection prevention measures in the OR, namely medical devices and instruments, surgical attire and air treatment systems.

METHODS

A scoping review of the international scientific literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The search was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar. Articles published between 2010 and June 2021 on infection prevention measures, their impact on the health sector's carbon footprint, and risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) were included.

FINDINGS

Although hospitals strive to reduce their carbon footprint, many infection prevention measures result in increased emissions. Evidence suggests that the use of disposable items instead of reusable items generally increases the carbon footprint, depending on sources of electricity. Controversy exists regarding the correlation between air treatment systems, contamination and the incidence of SSIs. The literature indicates that new air treatment systems consume more energy and do not necessarily reduce SSIs compared with conventional systems.

CONCLUSION

Infection prevention measures in ORs can be at odds with sustainability. The use of new air treatment systems and disposable items generally leads to significant greenhouse gas emissions, and does not necessarily reduce the incidence of SSIs. Alternative infection prevention measures with less environmental impact are available. Implementation could be facilitated by embracing environmental impact as an additional dimension of quality of care, which should change current risk-based approaches for the prevention of SSIs.

A life cycle assessment of reprocessing face masks during the Covid-19 pandemic

The Covid-19 pandemic led to threatening shortages in healthcare of medical products such as face masks. Due to this major impact on our healthcare society an initiative was conducted between March and July 2020 for reprocessing of face masks from 19 different hospitals. This exceptional opportunity was used to study the costs impact and the carbon footprint of reprocessed face masks relative to new disposable face masks. The aim of this study is to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess and compare the climate change impact of disposed versus reprocessed face masks. In total 18.166 high quality medical FFP2 face masks were reprocessed through steam sterilization between March and July 2020. Greenhouse gas emissions during production, transport, sterilization and end-of-life processes were assessed. The background life cycle inventory data were retrieved from the ecoinvent database. The life cycle impact assessment method ReCiPe was used to translate emissions into climate change impact. The cost analysis is based on actual sterilization as well as associated costs compared to the prices of new disposable face masks. A Monte Carlo sampling was used to propagate the uncertainty of different inputs to the LCA results. The carbon footprint appears to be 58% lower for face masks which were reused for five times compared to new face masks which were used for one time only. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the loading capacity of the autoclave and rejection rate of face masks has a large influence on the carbon footprint. The estimated cost price of a reprocessed mask was €1.40 against €1.55. The Life Cycle Assessment demonstrates that reprocessed FFP2 face masks from a circular economy perspective have a lower climate change impact on the carbon footprint than new face masks. For policymakers it is important to realize that the carbon footprint of medical products such as face masks may be reduced by means of circular economy strategies. This study demonstrated a lower climate change impact and lower costs when reprocessing and reusing disposable face masks for five times. Therefore, this study may serve as an inspiration for investigating reprocessing of other medical products that may become scarce. Finally, this study advocates that circular design engineering principles should be taken into account when designing medical devices. This will lead to more sustainable products that have a lower carbon footprint and may be manufactured at lower costs.

[Steps for reducing the carbon footprint of the operating room]

The healthcare sector contributes significantly to global warming due to carbon emissions; this sector is, therefore, partially responsible for the negative effects of climate change on public health. Carbon emissions by the healthcare sector amount to 7% of the total carbon footprint of the Netherlands. It is anticipated that measures to reduce carbon emissions in the operating room (OR) can make an important contribution to reducing carbonemissions in the hospital as a whole. The most important elements contributing to the carbon footprint of the OR are: energy consumption for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); the emission of inhalation anaesthetics; the purchase of materials and equipment; and waste production. Direct carbon emissions by the OR can be reduced through the use of sustainable energy and setback of the HVAC outside office hours. Anaesthetists can dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of the OR by choosing for intravenous anaesthetics instead of inhalation anaesthetics. Indirect carbon emissions and waste production by the OR can be reduced through circular procurement, choosing reusable over disposable products and recycling.

Novel method for intraoperative assessment of cerebral autoregulation by paced breathing

Background

Cerebral autoregulation (CA) is the mechanism that maintains constancy of cerebral blood flow (CBF) despite variations in blood pressure (BP). Patients with attenuated CA have been shown to have an increased incidence of peri-operative stroke. Studies of CA in anaesthetized subjects are rare, because a simple and non-invasive method to quantify the integrity of CA is not available. In this study, we set out to improve non-invasive quantification of CA during surgery. For this purpose, we introduce a novel method to amplify spontaneous BP fluctuations during surgery by imposing mechanical positive pressure ventilation at three different frequencies and quantify CA from the resulting BP oscillations.

Methods

Fourteen patients undergoing sevoflurane anaesthesia were included in the study. Continuous non-invasive BP and transcranial Doppler-derived CBF velocity (CBF V ) were obtained before surgery during 3 min of paced breathing at 6, 10, and 15 bpm and during surgery from mechanical positive pressure ventilation at identical frequencies. Data were analysed using frequency domain analysis to obtain CBF V -to-BP phase lead as a continuous measure of CA efficacy. Group averages were calculated. Values are means ( sd ), and P <0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Preoperative vs intraoperative CBF V -to-BP phase lead was 43 (9) vs 45 (8)°, 25 (8) vs 24 (10)°, and 4 (6) vs -2 (12)° during 6, 10, and 15 bpm, respectively (all P =NS).

Conclusions

During surgery, cerebral autoregulation indices were similar to values determined before surgery. This indicates that CA can be quantified reliably and non-invasively using this novel method and confirms earlier evidence that CA is unaffected by sevoflurane anaesthesia.

Clinical trial registration

NCT03071432.

Sevoflurane based anaesthesia does not affect already impaired cerebral autoregulation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The baroreflex regulates arterial blood pressure (BP). During periods when blood pressure changes, cerebral blood flow (CBF) is kept constant by cerebral autoregulation (CA). In patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), low baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) is associated with impaired CA. As sevoflurane-based anaesthesia obliterates BRS, we hypothesised that this could aggravate the already impaired CA in patients with DM resulting in a 'double-hit' on cerebral perfusion leading to increased fluctuations in blood pressure and cerebral perfusion.

METHODS

On the day before surgery, we measured CBF velocity (CBFV), heart rate, and BP to determine BRS and CA efficacy (CBFV_mean-to-BP_mean-phase lead) in 25 patients with DM and in 14 controls. During the operation, BRS and CA efficacy were determined during sevoflurane-based anaesthesia. Patients with DM were divided into a group with high BRS (DM_BRS↑) and a group with low BRS (DM_BRS↓). Values presented are median (inter-quartile range).

RESULTS

Preoperative vs intraoperative BRS was 6.2 (4.5-8.5) vs 1.9 (1.1-2.5, P<0.001) ms mm Hg^-1 for controls, 5.8 (4.9-7.6) vs 2.7 (1.5-3.9, P<0.001) ms mm Hg^-1 for patients with DM_BRS↑, and 1.9 (1.5-2.8) vs 1.1 (0.6-2.5, P=0.31) ms mm Hg^-1 for patients with DM_BRS↓. Preoperative vs intraoperative CA efficacy was 43° (38-46) vs 43° (38-51, P=0.30), 44° (36-49) vs 41° (32-49, P=0.52), and 34° (28-40) vs 30° (27-38, P=0.64) for controls, DM_BRS↑, and DM_BRS↓ patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In diabetic patients with low preoperative BRS, preoperative CA efficacy was also impaired. In controls and diabetic patients, CA was unaffected by sevoflurane-based anaesthesia. We therefore conclude that sevoflurane-based anaesthesia does not contribute to a 'double-hit' phenomenon on cerebral perfusion.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT 03071432.