Environmental considerations with peri-operative simple analgesics

Environmental and financial impacts of perioperative paracetamol use: a multicentre international life-cycle assessment

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceuticals account for 19-32% of healthcare greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Paracetamol is a common perioperative analgesic agent. We estimated GHG emissions associated with i.v. and oral formulations of paracetamol used in the perioperative period.

METHODS

Life-cycle assessment of GHG emissions (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents CO2e) of i.v. and oral paracetamol preparations was performed. Perioperative paracetamol prescribing practices and costs for 26 hospitals in USA, UK, and Australia were retrospectively audited. For those surgical patients for whom oral formulations were indicated, CO2e and costs of actual prescribing practices for i.v. or oral doses were compared with optimal oral prescribing.

RESULTS

The carbon footprint for a 1 g dose was 38 g CO2e (oral tablet), 151 g CO2e (oral liquid), and 310-628 g CO2e (i.v. dependent on type of packaging and administration supplies). Of the eligible USA patients, 37% received paracetamol (67% was i.v.). Of the eligible UK patients, 85% received paracetamol (80% was i.v.). Of the eligible Australian patients, 66% received paracetamol (70% was i.v.). If the emissions mitigation opportunity from substituting oral tablets for i.v. paracetamol is extrapolated to USA, UK, and Australia elective surgical encounters in 2019, ∼5.7 kt CO2e could have been avoided and would save 98.3% of financial costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous paracetamol has 12-fold greater life-cycle carbon emissions than the oral tablet form. Glass vials have higher greenhouse gas emissions than plastic vials. Intravenous administration should be reserved for cases in which oral formulations are not feasible.

Anaesthetic subspecialties and sustainable healthcare: a narrative review

The principles of environmentally sustainable healthcare as applied to anaesthesia and peri-operative care are well documented. Associated recommendations focus on generic principles that can be applied to all areas of practice. These include reducing the use of inhalational anaesthetic agents and carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of modern peri-operative care. However, four areas of practice have specific patient, surgical and anaesthetic factors that present barriers to the implementation of some of these principles, namely: neuroanaesthesia; obstetric; paediatric; and cardiac anaesthesia. This narrative review describes these factors and synthesises the available evidence to highlight areas of sustainable practice clinicians can address today, as well as posing several unanswered questions for the future. In neuroanaesthesia, improvements can be made by undertaking awake surgery, moving towards more reusables and embracing telemedicine in quaternary services. Obstetric anaesthesia continues to present questions regarding how services can move away from nitrous oxide use or limit its release to the environment. The focus for paediatric anaesthesia is addressing the barriers to total intravenous and regional anaesthesia. For cardiac anaesthesia, a significant emphasis is determining how to focus the substantial resources required on those who will benefit from cardiac interventions, rather than universal implementation. Whilst the landscape of evidence-based sustainable practice is evolving, there remains an urgent need for further original evidence in healthcare sustainability targeting these four clinical areas.