Financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use anaesthetic equipment.

BACKGROUND.: An innovative approach to choosing hospital equipment is to consider the environmental costs in addition to other costs and benefits. METHODS.: We used life cycle assessment to model the environmental and financial costs of different scenarios of replacing reusable anaesthetic equipment with single-use variants. The primary environmental costs were CO 2 emissions (in CO 2 equivalents) and water use (in litres). We compared energy source mixes between Australia, the UK/Europe, and the USA. RESULTS.: For an Australian hospital with six operating rooms, the annual financial cost of converting from single-use equipment to reusable anaesthetic equipment would be an AUD$32 033 (£19 220), 46% decrease. In Australia, converting from single-use to reusable equipment would result in an increase of CO 2 emissions from 5095 (95% CI: 4614-5658) to 5575 kg CO 2 eq (95% CI: 5542-5608), a 480 kg CO 2 eq (9%) increase. Using the UK/European power mix, converting from single-use (5575 kg CO 2 eq) to reusable anaesthetic equipment (802 kg CO 2 eq) would result in an 84% reduction (4873 kg CO 2 eq) in CO 2 emissions, whilst in the USA converting to reusables would have led to a 2427 kg CO 2 eq (48%) reduction. In Australia, converting from single-use to reusable equipment would more than double water use from 34.4 to 90.6 kilolitres. CONCLUSIONS.: For an Australian hospital with six operating rooms, converting from single-use to reusable anaesthetic equipment saved more than AUD$30 000 (£18 000) per annum, but increased the CO 2 emissions by almost 10%. The CO 2 offset is highly dependent on the power source mix, while water consumption is greater for reusable equipment.

The microbiological and sustainability effects of washing anaesthesia breathing circuits less frequently.

In the presence of single-use airway filters, we quantified anaesthetic circuit aerobic microbial contamination rates when changed every 24 h, 48 h and 7 days. Microbiological samples were taken from the interior of 305 anaesthetic breathing circuits over a 15-month period (3197 operations). There was no significant difference in the proportion of contaminated circuits when changed every 24 h (57/105 (54%, 95% CI 45-64%)) compared with 48 h (43/100 (43%, 95% CI 33-53%, p = 0.12)) and up to 7 days (46/100 (46%, 95% CI 36-56%, p = 0.26)). Median bacterial counts were not increased at 48 h or 7 days provided circuits were routinely emptied of condensate. Annual savings for one hospital (six operating theatres) were $AU 5219 (£3079, €3654, $US 4846) and a 57% decrease in anaesthesia circuit steriliser loads associated with a yearly saving of 2760 kWh of electricity and 48 000 l of water. Our findings suggest that extended circuit use from 24 h up to 7 days does not significantly increase bacterial contamination, and is associated with labour, energy, water and financial savings.

The financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use plastic anaesthetic drug trays.

We modelled the financial and environmental costs of two commonly used anaesthetic plastic drug trays. We proposed that, compared with single-use trays, reusable trays are less expensive, consume less water and produce less carbon dioxide, and that routinely adding cotton and paper increases financial and environmental costs. We used life cycle assessment to model the financial and environmental costs of reusable and single-use trays. From our life cycle assessment modelling, the reusable tray cost (Australian dollars) $0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] $0.21 to $0.25) while the single-use tray alone cost $0.47 (price range of $0.42 to $0.52) and the single-use tray with cotton and gauze added was $0.90 (no price range in Melbourne). Production of CO2 was 110 g CO2 (95% CI 98 to 122 g CO2) for the reusable tray, 126 g (95% CI 104 to 151 g) for single-use trays alone (mean difference of 16 g, 95% CI -8 to 40 g) and 204 g CO2 (95% CI 166 to 268 g CO2) for the single-use trays with cotton and paper Water use was 3.1 l (95% CI 2.5 to 3.7 l) for the reusable tray, 10.4 l (95% CI 8.2 to 12.7 l) for the single-use tray and 26.7 l (95% CI 20.5 to 35.4 l) for the single-use tray with cotton and paper Compared with reusable plastic trays, single-use trays alone cost twice as much, produced 15% more CO2 and consumed three times the amount of water Packaging cotton gauze and paper with single-use trays markedly increased the financial, energy and water costs. On both financial and environmental grounds it appears difficult to justify the use of single-use drug trays.