Search

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. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Objective:To study the airflow, transmission, and clearance of aerosols in the clinical spaces of a hospital ward that had been used to care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to examine the impact of portable air cleaners on aerosol clearance.Design:Observational study.Setting:A single ward of a tertiary-care public hospital in Melbourne, Australia.Intervention:Glycerin-based aerosol was used as a surrogate for respiratory aerosols. The transmission of aerosols from a single patient room into corridors and a nurses’ station in the ward was measured. The rate of clearance of aerosols was measured over time from the patient room, nurses’ station and ward corridors with and without air cleaners [ie, portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters].Results:Aerosols rapidly travelled from the patient room into other parts of the ward. Air cleaners were effective in increasing the clearance of aerosols from the air in clinical spaces and reducing their spread to other areas. With 2 small domestic air cleaners in a single patient room of a hospital ward, 99% of aerosols could be cleared within 5.5 minutes.Conclusions:Air cleaners may be useful in clinical spaces to help reduce the risk of acquisition of respiratory viruses that are transmitted via aerosols. They are easy to deploy and are likely to be cost-effective in a variety of healthcare settings.

As understanding grows of the scale of health care's environmental impacts, so too does interest in measuring and reporting on sustainability as a facet of health care system performance. This article examines important lessons from health care's long experience with performance and quality measurement and reporting that can be applied to the creation of health care sustainability metrics. Although some large health systems such as Kaiser Permanente have invested heavily in environmental stewardship, in the US the focus of health care sustainability measurement and reporting has typically been on corporate social responsibility and climate risk disclosure. The ability of health care organizations to generate data on and control environmental impacts can be limited by legacy infrastructure and complex supply chains. However, just as in other domains of performance, health care sustainability measurement and reporting must proceed from a clear conceptual framework and statement of purpose. Measurement must reflect strategic goals, instead of letting goals become dictated by ease of measurement. Health system leaders now need to set clear and compelling sustainability goals, invest in internationally comparable metrics by which to measure their success, and embed them in their core business.

A circular economy involves maintaining manufactured products in circulation, distributing resource and environmental costs over time and with repeated use. In a linear supply chain, manufactured products are used once and discarded. In high-income nations, health care systems increasingly rely on linear supply chains composed of single-use disposable medical devices. This has resulted in increased health care expenditures and health care-generated waste and pollution, with associated public health damage. It has also caused the supply chain to be vulnerable to disruption and demand fluctuations. Transformation of the medical device industry to a more circular economy would advance the goal of providing increasingly complex care in a low-emissions future. Barriers to circularity include perceptions regarding infection prevention, behaviors of device consumers and manufacturers, and regulatory structures that encourage the proliferation of disposable medical devices. Complementary policy- and market-driven solutions are needed to encourage systemic transformation.

OBJECTIVES To estimate the carbon footprint of five common hospital pathology tests: full blood examination; urea and electrolyte levels; coagulation profile; C-reactive protein concentration; and arterial blood gases. DESIGN, SETTING Prospective life cycle assessment of five pathology tests in two university-affiliated health services in Melbourne. We included all consumables and associated waste for venepuncture and laboratory analyses, and electricity and water use for laboratory analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Greenhouse gas footprint, measured in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 e) emissions. RESULTS CO2 e emissions for haematology tests were 82 g/test (95% CI, 73-91 g/test) for coagulation profile and 116 g/test (95% CI, 101-135 g/test) for full blood examination. CO2 e emissions for biochemical tests were 0.5 g/test CO2 e (95% CI, 0.4-0.6 g/test) for C-reactive protein (low because typically ordered with urea and electrolyte assessment), 49 g/test (95% CI, 45-53 g/test) for arterial blood gas assessment, and 99 g/test (95% CI, 84-113 g/test) for urea and electrolyte assessment. Most CO2 e emissions were associated with sample collection (range, 60% for full blood examination to 95% for coagulation profile); emissions attributable to laboratory reagents and power use were much smaller. CONCLUSION The carbon footprint of common pathology tests was dominated by those of sample collection and phlebotomy. Although the carbon footprints were small, millions of tests are performed each year in Australia, and reducing unnecessary testing will be the most effective approach to reducing the carbon footprint of pathology. Together with the detrimental health and economic effects of unnecessary testing, our environmental findings should further motivate clinicians to test wisely.

We are in a health emergency precipitated by climate change.1 As well as physical health threats, climate change and its effects are adversely affecting Australians' mental health,2 and worsening the health inequities suffered by vulnerable populations. In response, the Australian health care community must both adapt to increased demand and to deteriorating environmental conditions, and mitigate the carbon footprint of health care, currently 7% of our national carbon emissions.3 Using economic data from 360 sectors, Malik and colleagues3 estimated carbon emissions by Australian Institute of Health and Welfare categories of health care expenditure, finding that the hospital and pharmaceutical sectors had the largest footprints, together accounting for 63% of health care emissions.

Hospitals are the largest greenhouse gas producers within the Australian healthcare sector due to the large amounts of energy, resource utilization, equipment and pharmaceuticals required to deliver care. In order to reduce healthcare emissions, healthcare services must take multiple actions to address the broad range of emissions produced when delivering patient care. The goal of this study was to seek consensus on the priority actions needed to reduce the environmental impact of a tertiary Australian hospital. A nominal group technique was utilized within a multidisciplinary, executive-led environmental sustainability committee to find consensus on the 62 proposed actions to reduce the environmental impact of a tertiary Australian hospital. Thirteen participants joined an online workshop during which an educational presentation was delivered, 62 potential actions were privately ranked according to two domains of ‘amenability to change’ and ‘scale of climate impact’ and a moderated group discussion ensued. The group achieved verbal consensus on 16 actions that span staff education, procurement, pharmaceuticals, waste, transport and advocacy on all-electric capital works upgrades. In addition, the individual ratings of potential actions according to each domain were ranked and shared with the group. Despite a large number of actions and varied perspectives within the group, the nominal group technique can be used to focus a hospital leadership group on priority actions to improve environmental sustainability.

Summary Background While the range of possible transmission pathways of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in various settings has been investigated thoroughly, most authorities have recently acknowledged the role of aerosol spread in its transmission, especially in indoor environments where ventilation is poor. Engineering controls are needed to mitigate aerosol transmission in high-risk settings including hospital wards, classrooms and offices. Aim To assess the effectiveness of aerosol filtration by portable air cleaning devices with high-efficiency particulate air filters used in addition to a standard building heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Methods Test rooms, including a single-bed hospital room, were filled with test aerosol to simulate aerosol movement. Aerosol counts were measured over time with various portable air cleaning devices and room ventilation systems to quantify the overall aerosol clearance rate. Findings Portable air cleaning devices were very effective for removal of aerosols. The aerosols were cleared five times faster in a small control room with portable air cleaning devices than in the room with HVAC alone. The single-bed hospital room had an excellent ventilation rate (∼14 air changes per hour) and cleared the aerosols in 20 min. However, with the addition of two air cleaning devices, the clearance time was three times faster. Conclusions Inexpensive portable air cleaning devices should be considered for small and enclosed spaces in healthcare settings, such as inpatient rooms and personal protective equipment donning/doffing stations. Portable air cleaning devices are particularly important where there is limited ability to reduce aerosol transmission with building HVAC ventilation.

Health professionals are well positioned to effect change by reshaping individual practice, influencing healthcare organisations, and setting clinical standards, argue Jodi Sherman and colleagues

Healthcare’s environmental sustainability is increasingly an area of research and advocacy focus. The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) has produced a professional document, PS64, Statement on Environmental Sustainability in Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice, and a background paper, PS64 BP. The purpose of the statement is to affirm ANZCA’s commitment to environmental sustainability and support anaesthetists in promoting environmentally sustainable work practices. This article presents the main features of PS64 and its background paper, and the associated supporting evidence. The healthcare sector is highly interconnected with activities that emit pollution to air, water and soils, considerably adding to humanity’s collective ecological footprint. As anaesthetists, we are uniquely high-carbon doctors due to our work anaesthetising with greenhouse gases (particularly desflurane and nitrous oxide) and our exposure and contribution to large amounts of resource and energy use and waste generation in operating theatres. Discussion is made of the improving research base of anaesthetic life-cycle assessments—that is, cradle-to-grave studies of how much energy, water and so on a product or process requires throughout its entire life. Thereafter, reducing, reusing and recycling as well as water use are examined. Ongoing research efforts within environmentally sustainable anaesthesia are highlighted. Environmentally sustainable anaesthesia requires scholarship, health advocacy, leadership, communication and collaboration. The focus is placed on practical initiatives within PS64 and the background paper that can be achieved by all anaesthetists striving towards more sustainable healthcare practices that reduce waste, reap financial benefits and improve health.

ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of aerosol filtration by portable air cleaning devices with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters used in addition to standard building heating ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC).MethodsTest rooms, including a hospital single-patient room, were filled with test aerosol to simulate aerosol movement. Aerosol counts were measured over time with various portable air cleaning devices and room ventilation systems to quantify the aerosol concentration reduction rate and overall clearance rate.ResultsPortable air cleaners were very effective in removing aerosols, especially for the devices with high flow rate. In a small control room, the aerosols were cleared 4 to 5 times faster with portable air cleaners than the room with HVAC alone. A single bed hospital room equipped with an excellent ventilation rate (∼ 14 air changes per hour) can clear the aerosols in 20 minutes. However, with the addition of two air cleaners, the clearance time became 3 times faster (in 6 minutes and 30 seconds).ConclusionsPortable air cleaning devices with HEPA filtration were highly effective at removing aerosols. To clear aerosols (above 90% clearance) in under 10 minutes requires around 25 air changes per hour; readily feasible with air cleaners. Inexpensive portable air cleaning devices should be considered for small and enclosed spaces in health care settings such as inpatient rooms, personal protective equipment donning/doffing stations, and staff tea rooms. Portable air cleaners are particularly important where there is limited ability to reduce aerosol transmission with building HVAC ventilation.

Objective Are Australian hospitals moving towards renewable energy sources for their electricity, and aligning energy choices with core business, i.e. protecting and promoting health? Design Cross-sectional analysis of Australian state/territory amalgamated energy data Setting Healthcare’s carbon footprint is approximately 7% of Australia’s total carbon footprint. It is unknown if Australian public hospitals are decoupling energy needs from carbon emissions over and above state/territory based renewable energy targets. Participants 693 Australian public hospitals direct energy usage (renewable & non-renewable electricity [produced/purchased], natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, for the three consecutive years from 2016/17 to 2018/19. Main outcome measures All direct energy produced/purchased and consumed (converted to kilowatt-hours). Results Australian public hospitals consumed 4,122 gigawatt-hours of energy in 2018/19. Electricity use was 2,504 (61%) GWh, natural gas 1,436 (35%) GWh and renewable energy 94 GWh (2.3%). Victoria and New South Wales combined consumed 2,494/ 4,122 GWh (60%) of total Australian public healthcare energy but each produced/purchased less than 1% renewable electricity. For Queensland, a Health GreenPower purchase comprised the majority (71/94 GWh; 76%) of renewable energy production/purchase by all Australian public hospitals. By comparison, individual tertiary education institutions produced/purchased more renewable energy than all Australian public hospitals combined (University of NSW 124 GWh/yr, Swinburne University 90 GWh/yr, 2018/19). Conclusions Australian public hospitals obtain approximately 2.3% of total energy from renewable electricity. One third of hospital energy use stems from fossil gas use. The Australian public hospital system has no documented plans to transition to renewable energy, contrasting with the University sector. The known Australian healthcare contributes approximately 7% of Australia’s total carbon footprint with public hospital energy use a major source of healthcare associated carbon emissions. The new Australian public hospitals consumed 4122 gigawatt-hours in 2018/2019. Approximately 2.3% (94/4,122 gigawatt-hours) of hospital energy was sourced from renewables, beyond state-wide renewable electricity penetration. The implications Australian public hospitals are large emitters of greenhouse gases. Hospital fossil fuel energy use and subsequent pollution continues unabated. Such increasing pollution is at odds with the ethos ‘first do no harm’.

ObjectiveTo study the airflow, transmission and clearance of aerosols in the clinical spaces of a hospital ward that had been used to care for patients with COVID-19, and to examine the impact of portable air cleaners on aerosol clearance.DesignObservational studySettingA single ward of a tertiary public hospital in Melbourne AustraliaInterventionGlycerine-based aerosol was used as a surrogate for respiratory aerosols. The transmission of aerosols from a single patient room into corridors and a nurses’ station in the ward was measured. The rate of clearance of aerosols was measured over time from the patient room, nurses’ station and ward corridors with and without air cleaners (also called portable HEPA filters).ResultsAerosols rapidly travelled from the patient room into other parts of the ward. Air cleaners were effective in increasing the clearance of aerosols from the air in clinical spaces and reducing their spread to other areas. With two small domestic air cleaners in a single patient room of a hospital ward, 99% of aerosols could be cleared within 5.5 minutes.ConclusionAir cleaners may be useful in clinical spaces to help reduce the risk of healthcare acquired acquisition of respiratory viruses that are transmitted via aerosols. They are easy to deploy and are likely to be cost effective in a variety of healthcare settings

Approximately 95% of the anesthetic gas administered to a patient is exhaled and ultimately released into the atmosphere. Most anesthetic gases have high global warming potential and so this approach adds significantly to the global greenhouse gas footprint. In this work, we develop a feasible means to capture such an anesthetic gas (sevoflurane) before it is released to the hospital scavenging system so that it is retained within the anesthetic circuit. Sevoflurane is retained using a microporous 1,2-bis(triethoxysilyl)ethane (BTESE) membrane prepared by a sol-gel method. The use of a ceramic membrane facilitates sanitization at high temperatures. A rapid thermal processing (RTP) technique is employed to reduce production time and to create a looser organosilica network, resulting in higher gas permeances, compared with the membrane synthesized from conventional thermal processing. The RTP membrane shows a slight decline in gas permeance when used with a dry mixture of CO2/N2/sevoflurane. This permeance falls again under 20% relative humidity feed conditions but the CO2/sevoflurane selectivity increases. The membrane performance shows little variation when the relative humidity is further increased. These promising results demonstrate that this microporous BTESE membrane has great potential for the recovery of sevoflurane in an anesthetic application.

Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) have frequently become infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 whilst treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A variety of novel devices have been proposed to reduce COVID-19 cross-contamination. Objectives The aim of the study was (i) to test whether patients and HCWs thought that a novel patient isolation hood was safe and comfortable and (ii) to obtain COVID-19 infection data of hospital HCWs. Methods This is a prospective cohort study of 20 patients, entailing HCW/patient questionnaires and safety aspects of prototype isolation hoods. COVID-19 data of HCWs were prospectively collected. Assessment of the hood's safety and practicality and adverse event reporting was carried out. Outcome measures The outcome measures are as follows: questionnaire responses, adverse event reporting, rates of infections in HCWs during the study period (20/6/2020 to 21/7/2020), and COVID-19 infections in HCWs reported until the last recorded diagnosis of COVID-19 in HCWs (20/6/2020 to 27/9/2020). Results Of the 64 eligible individual HCW surveys, 60 surveys were overall favourable (>75% questions answered in favour of the isolation hood). HCWs were unanimous in perceiving the hood as safe (60/60), preferring its use (56/56), and understanding its potential COVID-19 cross-contamination minimisation (60/60). All eight patients who completed the questionnaire thought the isolation hood helped prevent COVID-19 cross infection and was safe and comfortable. There were no reported patient safety adverse events. The COVID-19 attack rate from 20/6/2020 to 27/9/2020 among registered nurses was as follows: intensive care units (ICUs), 2.2% (3/138); geriatric wards, 13.2% (26/197); and COVID-19 wards, 18.3% (32/175). The COVID-19 attack rate among medical staff was as follows: junior staff, 2.1% (24/932); senior staff, 0.7% (4/607); aged care/rehabilitation, 6.7% (2/30); and all ICU medical staff, 8.6% (3/35). Conclusions The isolation hood was preferred to standard care by HCWs and well tolerated by patients, and after the study, isolation hoods became part of standard ICU therapy. There was an association between being an ICU nurse and a low COVID-19 infection rate (no causality implied). ICU HCWs feel safer when treating patients with COVID-19 using an isolation hood.

To the Editor: The global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a significant increase in the use of preprint services to enable the widespread dissemination of research findings (1). However, whether such facilities influence practice change is currently unknown. Here, we describe the impact of the preprint release and eventual publication of the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial (2) on corticosteroid use in clinical practice in Australian ICUs. The RECOVERY trial tested the efficacy of dexamethasone (6 mg by mouth or intravenously for up to 10 d) in hospitalized patients with clinically suspected or confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and demonstrated a reduction in 28-day mortality, particularly in those receiving either mechanical ventilation or oxygen. Before these results, the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society COVID-19 guidelines recommended against the routine use of corticosteroids (3).

Significant concern exists regarding the risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCov-2) to health care workers during aerosol generating procedures.The risk of viral transmission to health care workers during tracheostomy insertion is unknown.

To quantify aerosol generation from respiratory interventions and the effectiveness of their removal by a personal ventilation hood.Determination of the aerosol particle generation (in a single, healthy volunteer in a clean room) associated with breathing, speaking, wet coughing, oxygen (OAerosol generation was measured with two particle sizer and counter devices, focusing on aerosols 0.5-5 μm (human-generated aerosols), with and without the hood. An increase from baseline of less than 0.3 particles per mL was considered a low level of generation.Comparisons of aerosol generation between different respiratory interventions. Effectiveness of aerosol reduction by a personal ventilation hood.Results for the 0.5-5 μm aerosol range. Quiet breathing and talking demonstrated very low increase in aerosols (0.1 particles/mL). Aerosol generation was low for wet coughing (0.1 particles/mL), OIn this human volunteer study, the administration of O

Summary The detrimental health effects of climate change continue to increase. Although health systems respond to this disease burden, healthcare itself pollutes the atmosphere, land, and waterways. We surveyed the ‘state of the art’ environmental sustainability research within anaesthesia and critical care, addressing why it matters, what is known, and ideas for future work. Focus is placed upon the atmospheric chemistry of the anaesthetic gases, recent work clarifying their relative global warming potentials, and progress in waste anaesthetic gas treatment. Life cycle assessment (LCA; i.e. ‘cradle to grave’ analysis) is introduced as the definitive method used to compare and contrast ecological footprints of products, processes, and systems. The number of LCAs within medicine has gone from rare to an established body of knowledge in the past decade that can inform doctors of the relative ecological merits of different techniques. LCAs with practical outcomes are explored, such as the carbon footprint of reusable vs single-use anaesthetic devices (e.g. drug trays, laryngoscope blades, and handles), and the carbon footprint of treating an ICU patient with septic shock. Avoid, reduce, reuse, recycle, and reprocess are then explored. Moving beyond routine clinical care, the vital influences that the source of energy (renewables vs fossil fuels) and energy efficiency have in healthcare's ecological footprint are highlighted. Discussion of the integral roles of research translation, education, and advocacy in driving the perioperative and critical care environmental sustainability agenda completes this review.

Background: A multidisciplinary collaboration investigated the world's largest, most catastrophic epidemic thunderstorm asthma event that took place in Melbourne, Australia, on Nov 21, 2016, to inform mechanisms and preventive strategies. Methods: Meteorological and airborne pollen data, satellite-derived vegetation index, ambulance callouts, emergency department presentations, and data on hospital admissions for Nov 21, 2016, as well as leading up to and following the event were collected between Nov 21, 2016, and March 31, 2017, and analysed. We contacted patients who presented during the epidemic thunderstorm asthma event at eight metropolitan health services (each including up to three hospitals) via telephone questionnaire to determine patient characteristics, and investigated outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Findings: Grass pollen concentrations on Nov 21, 2016, were extremely high (>100 grains/m 3 ). At 1800 AEDT, a gust front crossed Melbourne, plunging temperatures 10°C, raising humidity above 70%, and concentrating particulate matter. Within 30 h, there were 3365 (672%) excess respiratory-related presentations to emergency departments, and 476 (992%) excess asthma-related admissions to hospital, especially individuals of Indian or Sri Lankan birth (10% vs 1%, p

Importance It is unclear whether vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine are more effective than hydrocortisone alone in expediting resolution of septic shock. Objective To determine whether the combination of vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine, compared with hydrocortisone alone, improves the duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration in patients with septic shock. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted in 10 intensive care units in Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil that recruited 216 patients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 definition of septic shock. The first patient was enrolled on May 8, 2018, and the last on July 9, 2019. The final date of follow-up was October 6, 2019. Interventions Patients were randomized to the intervention group (n = 109), consisting of intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g every 6 hours), hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 hours), and thiamine (200 mg every 12 hours), or to the control group (n = 107), consisting of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 hours) alone until shock resolution or up to 10 days. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary trial outcome was duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration up to day 7. Ten secondary outcomes were prespecified, including 90-day mortality. Results Among 216 patients who were randomized, 211 provided consent and completed the primary outcome measurement (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 15.0]; 133 men [63%]). Time alive and vasopressor free up to day 7 was 122.1 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 76.3-145.4 hours) in the intervention group and 124.6 hours (IQR, 82.1-147.0 hours) in the control group; the median of all paired differences was –0.6 hours (95% CI, –8.3 to 7.2 hours;P = .83). Of 10 prespecified secondary outcomes, 9 showed no statistically significant difference. Ninety-day mortality was 30/105 (28.6%) in the intervention group and 25/102 (24.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.69-2.00). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions and Relevance In patients with septic shock, treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine, compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone, did not significantly improve the duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration over 7 days. The finding suggests that treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine does not lead to a more rapid resolution of septic shock compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03333278

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.

The setting of tidal volume (VWe performed a multicentre, prospective, observational study. We collected clinical, ventilatory and arterial blood gas data twice daily for 7 days. We performed subgroup analysis by sex and assessment of arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCOWe recorded 453 observational sets in 123 patients across seven ICUs. The most commonly selected initial VIn adults without ARDS undergoing CMV in Australian ICUs, the initial V

To obtain an accurate estimate of smoking prevalence and smoking cessation support practices, including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units (ICUs).Cross-sectional, observational study using data obtained from adult ICUs participating in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group Point Prevalence Program in 2016.Prevalence and intensity of current smoking, baseline characteristics of smokers in comparison with non-smokers and frequency of NRT use while admitted to the ICU.Smoking data were present for 551 of 671 adult ICU patients from 47 ICUs on 2 study days in 2016. Of these 551 patients, 112 were current smokers (20.3%; 95% CI, 17.0-23.9%). No significant differences in severity of illness or mortality were observed between smokers and non-smokers. NRT was prescribed to 30/112 smokers (26.8%), and in 28 of those 30 patients (93%) it was administered via nicotine patch alone. Routine prescribing of NRT was practised in 28/47 ICUs (60%), and 24/47 ICUs (51%) had formal protocols or guidelines in place related to supporting smoking cessation.The prevalence of smoking in Australian and New Zealand ICUs patients is high. Over half of participating ICUs reported the routine prescription of NRT despite uncertainty regarding the practice. Further research evaluating the safety and efficacy of NRT is required.

We sought to estimate the proportion of patients admitted to a metropolitan intensive care unit (ICU) who were current smokers, and the relationships between ICU survivors who smoked and smoking cessation and/or reduction six months post–ICU discharge. We conducted a prospective cohort study at a metropolitan level III ICU in Melbourne, Victoria. One hundred consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who were smokers at time of ICU admission, had an ICU length of stay greater than one day, survived to ICU discharge, and provided written informed consent. A purpose-designed questionnaire which included the Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence and evaluation of patients’ attitude towards smoking cessation was completed by participants following ICU discharge and prior to hospital discharge. Participants were re-interviewed over the phone at six months post–ICU discharge. Of the 1,062 patients admitted to ICU, 253 (23%) were current smokers and 100 were enrolled. Six months post–ICU discharge, 28 (33%) of the 86 participants who were alive and contactable had quit smoking and 35 (41%) had reduced smoking. The median number of reported cigarettes smoked per day reduced by 40%. Participants who initially believed their ICU admission was smoking-related were more likely to have quit six months post–ICU discharge (odds ratio 2.98; 95% confidence intervals 1.07, 8.26; P=0.036). Six months post–ICU discharge, 63/86 (74%) of participants had quit or reduced their smoking. Further research into targeted smoking cessation counselling for ICU survivors is indicated.

Summary Background Carbon footprints stemming from health care have been found to be variable, from 3% of the total national CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions in England to 10% of the national CO 2 e emissions in the USA. We aimed to measure the carbon footprint of Australia's health-care system. Methods We did an observational economic input–output lifecycle assessment of Australia's health-care system. All expenditure data were obtained from the 15 sectors of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare for the financial year 2014–15. The Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab) data were used to obtain CO 2 e emissions per AUS$ spent on health care. Findings In 2014–15 Australia spent $161·6 billion on health care that led to CO 2 e emissions of about 35 772 (68% CI 25 398–46 146) kilotonnes. Australia's total CO 2 e emissions in 2014–15 were 494 930 kilotonnes, thus health care represented 35 772 (7%) of 494 930 kilotonnes total CO 2 e emissions in Australia. The five most important sectors within health care in decreasing order of total CO 2 e emissions were: public hospitals (12 295 [34%] of 35 772 kilotonnes CO 2 e), private hospitals (3635 kilotonnes [10%]), other medications (3347 kilotonnes [9%]), benefit-paid drugs (3257 kilotonnes [9%]), and capital expenditure for buildings (2776 kilotonnes [8%]). Interpretation The carbon footprint attributed to health care was 7% of Australia's total; with hospitals and pharmaceuticals the major contributors. We quantified Australian carbon footprint attributed to health care and identified health-care sectors that could be ameliorated. Our results suggest the need for carbon-efficient procedures, including greater public health measures, to lower the impact of health-care services on the environment. Funding None.

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 CO2 emissions (in CO2 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 CO2 emissions from 5095 (95% CI: 4614–5658) to 5575 kg CO2 eq (95% CI: 5542–5608), a 480 kg CO2 eq (9%) increase. Using the UK/European power mix, converting from single-use (5575 kg CO2 eq) to reusable anaesthetic equipment (802 kg CO2 eq) would result in an 84% reduction (4873 kg CO2 eq) in CO2 emissions, whilst in the USA converting to reusables would have led to a 2427 kg CO2 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 CO2 emissions by almost 10%. The CO2 offset is highly dependent on the power source mix, while water consumption is greater for reusable equipment.