Environmental sustainability: Overview

Abstract
This study aimed to quantify the amount of pharmaceutical waste produced in New Zealand, and determine the composition of pharmaceutical waste from community pharmacies in Auckland, New Zealand. Pharmaceutical waste collected in New Zealand is increasing, peaking at 542 tonne in 2019. Pharmaceutical waste collected from hospitals and pharmacies in Auckland increased by more than fourfold from 2016 to 2020. An audit of the types of pharmaceutical waste collected from community pharmacies revealed that the most common classes of drugs identified in this waste stream belonged to the nervous system, cardiovascular system and alimentary tract, and metabolism. Following examination of the contents of 12 pharmaceutical waste bins, 475 different pharmaceutical products were identified, highlighting the breadth of drugs in this waste stream. A range of dosage forms and hence materials were identified, which could present challenges for future waste treatment approaches. Hazardous drugs were identified including cytotoxic compounds, which should go into a separate waste stream for incineration. There is a need for similar data to be collected from multiple sites to fully appreciate the magnitude and composition of pharmaceutical waste. This will allow for the suitability of current practices for managing this hazardous waste stream to be evaluated.

Objective: Discuss if the use of disposable or reusable medical devices leads to a difference in terms of hospital-acquired infection or bacterial contamination. Determine which solution is less expensive and has less environmental impact in terms of carbon footprint, energy and water consumption and amount of waste.

Methods: We carried out a narrative review. Articles published in English and French from January 2000 to April 2020 were identified from PubMed.

Results: We retrieved 81 articles, including 12 randomised controlled trial, 21 literature reviews, 13 descriptive studies, 6 experimental studies, 9 life-cycle studies, 6 cohort studies, 2 meta-analysis, 4 case reports and 8 other studies. It appears that pathogen transmission in the anaesthesia work area is mainly due to the lack of hand hygiene among the anaesthesia team. The benefit of single-use devices on infectious risk is based on weak scientific arguments, while reusable devices have benefits in terms of costs, water consumption, energy consumption, waste, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Conclusion: Disposable medical devices and attire in the operating theatre do not mitigate the infectious risk to the patients but have a greater environmental, financial and social impact than the reusable ones. This study is the first step towards recommendations for more environmental-friendly practices in the operating theatre.

Abstract
Background: Health care itself contributes to climate change. Anesthesia is a "carbon hotspot," yet few data exist to compare anesthetic choices. The authors examined the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions associated with general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia, and combined (general and spinal anesthesia) during a total knee replacement.

Methods: A prospective life cycle assessment of 10 patients in each of three groups undergoing knee replacements was conducted in Melbourne, Australia. The authors collected input data for anesthetic items, gases, and drugs, and electricity for patient warming and anesthetic machine. Sevoflurane or propofol was used for general anesthesia. Life cycle assessment software was used to convert inputs to their carbon footprint (in kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent emissions), with modeled international comparisons.

Results: Twenty-nine patients were studied. The carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for general anesthesia were an average 14.9 (95% CI, 9.7 to 22.5) kg carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; spinal anesthesia, 16.9 (95% CI, 13.2 to 20.5) kg carbon dioxide equivalent; and for combined anesthesia, 18.5 (95% CI, 12.5 to 27.3) kg carbon dioxide equivalent. Major sources of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions across all approaches were as follows: electricity for the patient air warmer (average at least 2.5 kg carbon dioxide equivalent [20% total]), single-use items, 3.6 (general anesthesia), 3.4 (spinal), and 4.3 (combined) kg carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, respectively (approximately 25% total). For the general anesthesia and combined groups, sevoflurane contributed an average 4.7 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (35% total) and 3.1 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (19%), respectively. For spinal and combined, washing and sterilizing reusable items contributed 4.5 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (29% total) and 4.1 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (24%) emissions, respectively. Oxygen use was important to the spinal anesthetic carbon footprint (2.8 kg carbon dioxide equivalent, 18%). Modeling showed that intercountry carbon dioxide equivalent emission variability was less than intragroup variability (minimum/maximum).

Conclusions: All anesthetic approaches had similar carbon footprints (desflurane and nitrous oxide were not used for general anesthesia). Rather than spinal being a default low carbon approach, several choices determine the final carbon footprint: using low-flow anesthesia/total intravenous anesthesia, reducing single-use plastics, reducing oxygen flows, and collaborating with engineers to augment energy efficiency/renewable electricity.