Literature DB >> 32859360

Environmental and economic impact of using increased fresh gas flow to reduce carbon dioxide absorbent consumption in the absence of inhalational anaesthetics.

George Zhong1, Ali Abbas2, Joseph Jones2, Sarah Kong3, Tim McCulloch4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increasing fresh gas flow (FGF) to a circle breathing system reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbent consumption. We assessed the environmental and economic impacts of this trade-off between gas flow and absorbent consumption when no inhalational anaesthetic agent is used.
METHODS: A test lung with fixed CO2 inflow was ventilated via a circle breathing system of an anaesthetic machine (Dräger Primus or GE Aisys CS2) using an FGF of 1, 2, 4, or 6 L min-1. We recorded the time to exhaustion of the CO2 absorbent canister, defined as when inspired partial pressure of CO2 exceeded 0.3 kPa. For each FGF, we calculated the economic costs and the environmental impact associated with the manufacture of the CO2 absorbent canister and the supply of medical air and oxygen. Environmental impact was measured in 100 yr global-warming potential, analysed using a life cycle assessment 'cradle to grave' approach.
RESULTS: Increasing FGF from 1 to 6 L min-1 was associated with up to 93% reduction in the combined running cost with minimal net change to the 100 yr global-warming potential. Most of the reduction in cost occurred between 4 and 6 L min-1. Removing the CO2 absorbent from the circle system, and further increasing FGF to control CO2 rebreathing, afforded minimal further economic benefit, but more than doubled the global-warming potential.
CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of inhalational anaesthetic agents, increasing FGF to 6 L min-1 reduces running cost compared with lower FGFs, with minimal impact to the environment.
Copyright © 2020 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anaesthesia machine; carbon dioxide absorbent; cost analysis; fresh gas flow; life cycle assessment; mechanical ventilation; total intravenous anaesthesia

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32859360     DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.07.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Anaesth        ISSN: 0007-0912            Impact factor:   9.166


  3 in total

1.  Life cycle assessment of memsorb use.

Authors:  Alain F Kalmar; Pascal Verdonck
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 1.977

2.  High fresh gas flow during non-inhalational anaesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Comment on Br J Anaesth 2020; 125: 773-778.

Authors:  Alexander Hall; Abhijoy Chakladar
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 9.166

3.  Rationing oxygen use during total intravenous anaesthesia: a proportionate response?

Authors:  Morgan Back; George Zhong; Adam Al-Attar; Rebecca Sutton; Cliff Shelton
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 11.719

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.