Changing patterns in volatile anaesthetic agent consumption over seven years in Victorian public hospitals

Nitrous Oxide Use in Australian Health Care: Strategies to Reduce the Climate Impact

Nitrous oxide is a useful inhaled analgesic. Due to its high global warming potential and ozone-depleting properties, the nitrous oxide emissions related to health care are being increasingly scrutinized. In this narrative review, we will discuss the clinical uses of nitrous oxide relevant to anesthetists, in addition to its contribution as a greenhouse gas. Using available data from Australia, we will explore potential strategies for reducing the impact of those emissions, which are likely to be applicable in other countries. These include destruction of captured nitrous oxide, minimizing nitrous oxide waste and reducing clinical use. Anesthesia clinicians are well placed to raise awareness with colleagues and consumers regarding the environmental impact of nitrous oxide and to promote cleaner alternatives. Reducing use is likely to be the most promising reduction strategy without large-scale changes to infrastructure and subsequent delay in action.

The financial and environmental impact of purchased anaesthetic agents in an Australian tertiary hospital

Anaesthetic agents have various financial and environmental impacts. Climate change is one of the biggest threats to human health, and anaesthetic gases contribute to global heating by acting as greenhouse gases. The primary aim of this study was to quantify the financial and environmental impacts of anaesthesia maintenance agents used during surgery in an Australian university teaching hospital. The volume of desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane and propofol purchased by a university teaching hospital between 2010 and 2020 was analysed and described in terms of financial and environmental impact. Estimated carbon emissions and financial costs of each agent per annum were calculated using the volumes purchased for each agent. A model of ideal anaesthetic agent usage was used to hypothesise the financial and environmental impact of replacing desflurane (the most environmentally damaging and expensive agent) with alternative agents. Using 2019 as an example year at our health service, replacing desflurane with low flow sevoflurane would save greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to driving over 1.4 million kilometres in an average petrol car. Removing desflurane from machines at our institution could save an estimated A$14,630 per annum through reduced machine testing alone. Our findings and calculations indicate that reducing the use of desflurane would have both financial and environmental benefits for healthcare.

Greenhouse gas reduction in anaesthesia practice: a departmental environmental strategy

Sustainability interventions were implemented at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital (RBWH) following identification of inhaled anaesthetic gases as a target for reducing medical carbon emissions. This quality improvement study assessed and evaluated the impact of sustainability interventions on the environmental and financial cost of inhaled anaesthetic gas use in order to guide future initiatives and research in reducing carbon emissions from healthcare practice.

Ethical exemption was granted from the RBWH Research Ethics Committee (EX/2021/QRBW/76078). Usage (bottles) and expenditure for desflurane and sevoflurane from January 2016 to December 2021 were obtained. Global warming potential and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) were used to report environmental impact of volatile agents. Methods to estimate this were performed in Excel based on Campbell and Pierce methodology. An Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas equivalency calculator was used to convert CO₂e to equivalent petrol carbon emissions and kilometres travelled by a typical passenger vehicle.

The total number of bottles of sevoflurane and desflurane purchased between January 2016 and December 2021 decreased by 34.76% from 1991 to 1299. The number of desflurane bottles purchased decreased by 95.63% from 800 to 35 bottles. The number of sevoflurane bottles purchased increased by 6.13% from 1191 bottles to 1264 bottles. This was achieved by implementing quality improvement interventions such as staff education of desflurane-sparing practices, distribution of posters and progressive removal of desflurane from operating theatres. Total carbon emission from volatile anaesthetics equalled 2326 tonnes CO₂e. Combined desflurane and sevoflurane emissions decreased by 87.88%. In 2016, desflurane made up 92.39% of the annual CO₂e, which steadily decreased to 33.36% in 2021. Combined sevoflurane and desflurane usage costs decreased by 58.33%.

Substantial reductions in carbon emissions from volatile anaesthetics demonstrate the significant degree to which environmentally sustainable practices have been implemented. Applying desflurane-sparing practice can heavily limit anaesthetic drug expenditure and contribution to environmental waste. This is important given the global health sector’s challenge to optimise patient outcomes in the face of global climate change crisis.

Environmental and Occupational Considerations of Anesthesia: A Narrative Review and Update

With an estimated worldwide volume of 266 million surgeries in 2015, the call for general inhalation anesthesia is considerable. However, widely used volatile anesthetics such as N2O and the highly fluorinated gases sevoflurane, desflurane, and isoflurane are greenhouse gases, ozone-depleting agents, or both. Because these agents undergo minimal metabolism in the body during clinical use and are primarily (≥95%) eliminated unchanged via exhalation, waste anesthetic gases (WAGs) in operating rooms and postanesthesia care units can pose a challenge for overall elimination and occupational exposure. The chemical properties and global warming impacts of these gases vary, with atmospheric lifetimes of 1-5 years for sevoflurane, 3-6 years for isoflurane, 9-21 years for desflurane, and 114 years for N2O. Additionally, the use of N2O as a carrier gas for the inhalation anesthetics and as a supplement to intravenous (IV) anesthetics further contributes to these impacts. At the same time, unscavenged WAGs can result in chronic occupational exposure of health care workers to potential associated adverse health effects. Few adverse effects associated with WAGs have been documented, however, when workplace exposure limits are implemented. Specific measures that can help reduce occupational exposure and the environmental impact of inhaled anesthetics include efficient ventilation and scavenging systems, regular monitoring of airborne concentrations of waste gases to remain below recommended limits, ensuring that anesthesia equipment is well maintained, avoiding desflurane and N2O if possible, and minimizing fresh gas flow rates (eg, use of low-flow anesthesia). One alternative to volatile anesthetics may be total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). While TIVA is not associated with the risks of occupational exposure or atmospheric pollution that are inherent to volatile anesthetic gases, clinical considerations should be weighed in the choice of agent. Appropriate procedures for the disposal of IV anesthetics must be followed to minimize any potential for negative environmental effects. Overall, although their contributions are relatively low compared with those of other human-produced substances, inhaled anesthetics are intrinsically potent greenhouse gases and pose a risk to operating-room personnel if not properly managed and scavenged. Factors to reduce waste and minimize the future impact of these substances should be considered.

A survey of the choice of general anaesthetic agents in Australia and New Zealand

Strategies to reduce the adverse environmental costs of anaesthesia include choice of agent and fresh gas flows. The current preferences of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists are unknown. We conducted a survey of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists to determine the use of volatiles, nitrous oxide and intravenous anaesthesia, lowest fresh gas flow rates, automated end-tidal volatile control, and the rationales for these choices. The survey was answered by 359/1000 (36%), although not all questions and multiple responses within single questions were answered by all respondents. Sevoflurane was preferred by 246/342 (72%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 67%–77%), followed by propofol, 54/340 (16%, 95% CI 12%–20%), desflurane 39/339 (12%, 95% CI 8%–16%) and isoflurane 3/338(1%, 95% CI 0–3%). When asked about all anaesthetics, low-risk clinical profile was the most common reason given for using sevoflurane (129/301 (43%, 95% CI 37%–49%)), reduced postoperative nausea for propofol (297/318 (93%, 95% CI 90%–96%)) and faster induction/awakening times for desflurane (46/313 (79%, 95% CI 74%–83%)). Two-thirds (226/340 (66%, 95% CI 61%–71%)) of respondents used nitrous oxide in 0–20% of general anaesthetics. Low fresh gas flow rates for sevoflurane were used by 310/333 (93%, 95% CI 90%–95%) and for 262/268 (98%, 95% CI 95%–99%) for desflurane. Automated end-tidal control was used by 196/333 (59%, 95% CI 53%–64%). The majority of respondents (>70%) preferred sevoflurane at low flows. These data allow anaesthetists to consider further whether changes are required to the choices of anaesthetic agents for environmental, financial, or any other reasons.