Environmental sustainability resources: Overview

Abstract
In today's era of modern healthcare, the intersection between medical practices and environmental responsibility has gained significant attention. One such area of focus is the practice of anesthesia, which plays a crucial role in various surgical procedures. Anesthetics such as nitrous oxide and volatile halogenated ethers (desflurane, isoflurane, sevoflurane) are examples of medical gases that are strong greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. During medical procedures, most of these anesthetic agents are released into the atmosphere, which exacerbates their influence on the environment. Also anesthesia delivery systems have traditionally utilized high flow rates of gases, leading to not only excessive consumption but also a considerable environmental impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the emergence of low-flow anesthesia (LFA) presents a promising solution for achieving emission reduction and cost savings, thereby aligning healthcare practices with sustainability goals. Understanding LFA involves the administration of anesthetic gases to patients at reduced flow rates compared to conventional high-flow methods. This practice requires precision in gas delivery, often incorporating advanced monitoring and control systems. By optimizing gas flow to match the patient's requirements, LFA minimizes wastage and excessive gas release into the environment, subsequently curbing the carbon footprint associated with healthcare operations. Decreasing volatile anesthetic delivery provides safe and effective strategies for anesthesia providers to decrease costs and reduce environmental pollution. Current literature support in favor of LFA represents an area of cost containment and an opportunity to lessen the environmental impact of anesthesia. This article will cover the concept of LFA, the distinctions between low flow and minimal flow, and the potential advantages of LFA, such as those related to patient safety, the environment, and the economy.

Abstract in English, French
Purpose: The combination of acetaminophen with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug is the cornerstone of perioperative multimodal analgesia. These drugs can be administered intravenously or orally as premedication, consistent with the concept of pre-emptive and preventive analgesia. We aimed to assess the environmental impact of their intravenous and oral administration in a French university hospital.

Methods: We carried out a life cycle assessment to determine the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and depletion of water resources resulting from the oral vs intravenous administration of 1 g acetaminophen and 50 mg ketoprofen. We assessed two schemes of intravenous administration, depending on the use of the same or a different infusion set for each drug.

Results: At our centre, the intravenous administration of both drugs was associated with the emission of 444-556 g CO2 equivalent (CO2e), and with 9.8-12.2 L of water waste. The oral administration of both drugs generated 8.36 g of CO2e emissions and consumed 1.16 L of water. At a national level, the switch from intravenous to oral premedication of the drugs could avoid the emission of 2,900-3,700 tons of CO2e and the waste of 58,000-74,000 m3 of water each year.

Conclusion: This eco-audit indicates that oral administration of acetaminophen and ketoprofen results in significantly lower carbon emissions and water consumption than intravenous administration. These findings highlight the importance of using the oral route for most patients, limiting intravenous administration for those with specific needs because of higher environmental impact and cost.