Bacterial contamination and greenhouse gas emissions: A randomised study of reuse versus single-use of infusion-set components for intravenous anaesthesia.
Journal
European journal of anaesthesiology
ISSN: 1365-2346
Titre abrégé: Eur J Anaesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8411711
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Sep 2024
17 Sep 2024
Historique:
medline:
17
9
2024
pubmed:
17
9
2024
entrez:
17
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Reusing anaesthesia infusion-set components may reduce the climate impact from plastic waste and discarded medications. Infusion-set contents can be shielded from patient contact by single use of an infusion line fitted with dual antireflux valves, preventing retrograde entry of microorganisms, and eliminating the risk for patient-to-patient cross-contamination. However, infusion-set contamination from compromised aseptic handling could affect quality of care. To determine the prevalence of infusion-set bacterial contamination and compare the climate effects, we randomised operating rooms scheduled for total intravenous anaesthesia to handle procedures by infusion-set reuse or single-use. Both methods used dual single-use antireflux valves. The primary outcome was infusion-set bacterial contamination assessed by aerobic culture of infusion-set fluid collected after each procedure. The secondary outcome was CO2 emissions (CO2-eq) estimated by life cycle assessment of component and medication use. To assess feasibility of detecting an inter-method difference in bacterial contamination, an interim analysis was planned after including at least 150 procedures per group. After allocating 54 operating rooms per method, 189 and 159 procedures of reuse and single use were included. Reuse permitted a median of three procedures per infusion set (range 1 to 8). Positive cultures occurred in two procedures per method [mean (95% CI)]; prevalence 1.15% (0.03 to 2.27); relative risk of reuse versus single use 0.84 (0.12 to 5.93), P = 0.861. As prespecified, inclusion was stopped due to futility. The median (95% CI) per-procedure climate emissions were 0.43 (0.41 to 0.47) and 1.39 (1.37 to 1.40) kg CO2-eq for reuse and single-use respectively; difference -0.96 (-0.99 to -0.93), P < 0.0005. The main sources for climate emissions were production of infusion-set components and waste handling. We conclude that the prevalence of bacterial contamination was low for both methods. A much larger study would be needed to detect an inter-method difference. Reuse of infusion-set components allowed significantly reduced intravenous anaesthesia climate emissions. http://links.lww.com/EJA/B34.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reusing anaesthesia infusion-set components may reduce the climate impact from plastic waste and discarded medications. Infusion-set contents can be shielded from patient contact by single use of an infusion line fitted with dual antireflux valves, preventing retrograde entry of microorganisms, and eliminating the risk for patient-to-patient cross-contamination. However, infusion-set contamination from compromised aseptic handling could affect quality of care.
INTERVENTIONS
METHODS
To determine the prevalence of infusion-set bacterial contamination and compare the climate effects, we randomised operating rooms scheduled for total intravenous anaesthesia to handle procedures by infusion-set reuse or single-use. Both methods used dual single-use antireflux valves.
OUTCOMES
RESULTS
The primary outcome was infusion-set bacterial contamination assessed by aerobic culture of infusion-set fluid collected after each procedure. The secondary outcome was CO2 emissions (CO2-eq) estimated by life cycle assessment of component and medication use. To assess feasibility of detecting an inter-method difference in bacterial contamination, an interim analysis was planned after including at least 150 procedures per group.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After allocating 54 operating rooms per method, 189 and 159 procedures of reuse and single use were included. Reuse permitted a median of three procedures per infusion set (range 1 to 8). Positive cultures occurred in two procedures per method [mean (95% CI)]; prevalence 1.15% (0.03 to 2.27); relative risk of reuse versus single use 0.84 (0.12 to 5.93), P = 0.861. As prespecified, inclusion was stopped due to futility. The median (95% CI) per-procedure climate emissions were 0.43 (0.41 to 0.47) and 1.39 (1.37 to 1.40) kg CO2-eq for reuse and single-use respectively; difference -0.96 (-0.99 to -0.93), P < 0.0005. The main sources for climate emissions were production of infusion-set components and waste handling.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that the prevalence of bacterial contamination was low for both methods. A much larger study would be needed to detect an inter-method difference. Reuse of infusion-set components allowed significantly reduced intravenous anaesthesia climate emissions.
VISUAL ABSTRACT
UNASSIGNED
http://links.lww.com/EJA/B34.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39285791
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000002067
pii: 00003643-990000000-00220
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care.
Références
Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, et al. The 2018 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: shaping the health of nations for centuries to come. Lancet (British edition) 2018; 392:2479–2514.
White SM, Shelton CL, Gelb AW, et al. Principles of environmentally-sustainable anaesthesia: a global consensus statement from the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists. Anaesthesia 2022; 77:201–212.
Gonzalez-Pizarro P, Brazzi L, Koch S, et al. European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care consensus document on sustainability: 4 scopes to achieve a more sustainable practice. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2024; 41:260–277.
Eichler W, Schumacher J, Ohgke H, Klotz K-F. Reuse of a set for total intravenous anaesthesia: safe against bacterial contamination? Eur J Anaesthesiol 2004; 21:501–503.
Radke OC, Werth K, Borg-Von-Zepelin M, et al. Two serial check valves can prevent cross-contamination through intravenous tubing during total intravenous anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2010; 111:925–928.
Cona MM, Bauwens M, Zheng Y, et al. Study on the microbial safety of an infusion set for contrast-enhanced imaging. Invest Radiol 2012; 47:247–251.
Ellger B, Kiski D, Diem E, et al. Nonreturn valves do not prevent backflow and bacterial contamination of intravenous infusions. J Hosp Infect 2011; 78:31–35.
Gargiulo DA, Mitchell SJ, Sheridan J, et al. Microbiological contamination of drugs during their administration for anesthesia in the operating room. Anesthesiology (Philadelphia) 2016; 124:785–794.
Goebel J, Steinmann J, von Heinegg EH, et al. Bacterial contamination of automated MRI contrast injectors in clinical routine. GMS Hyg Infect Control 2019; 14:Doc05–Doc15.
Nakataki EMD, Oto JMD, Hata MMT, et al. Incidence of bacterial contamination in infusion set needles. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41:273–274.
Koff MD, Loftus RW, Burchman CC, et al. Reduction in intraoperative bacterial contamination of peripheral intravenous tubing through the use of a novel device. Anesthesiology (Philadelphia) 2009; 110:978–985.
Lorenz IH, Kolbitsch C, Lass-Flörl C, et al. Routine handling of propofol prevents contamination as effectively as does strict adherence to the manufacturer's recommendations. Can J Anesth 2002; 49:347–352.
Webb SAR, Roberts B, Breheny FX, et al. Contamination of propofol infusions in the intensive care unit: incidence and clinical significance. Anaesth Intensive Care 1998; 26:162–164.
Trautmann M, Zauser B, Wiedeck H, et al. Bacterial colonization and endotoxin contamination of intravenous infusion fluids. J Hosp Infect 1997; 37:225–236.
Parvatker AG, Tunceroglu H, Sherman JD, et al. Cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions for twenty anesthetic active pharmaceutical ingredients based on process scale-up and process design calculations. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2019; 7:6580–6591.
Cogen AL, Nizet V, Gallo RL. Skin microbiota: a source of disease or defence? Br J Dermatol 2008; 158:442–455.
Bennett SN, McNeil MM, Bland LA, et al. Postoperative infections traced to contamination of an intravenous anesthetic, propofol. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:147–154.
Gottleben R, Tellez A, Puurunen K, Poikolainen H. Climate impact of a passenger car in Sweden from a life cycle perspective: Energiforsk AB 2021; https://energiforsk.se/media/29585/climate-impact-of-a-passenger-car-in-sweden-energiforskrapport-2021-724.pdf
Sherman J, Le C, Lamers V, Eckelman M. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic drugs. Anesth Analg 2012; 114:1086–1090.
Gasciauskaite G, Lunkiewicz J, Tucci M, et al. Environmental and economic impact of sustainable anaesthesia interventions: a single-centre retrospective observational study. Br J Anaesth 2024.
Sikora C, Chandran AU, Joffe AM, et al. Population risk of syringe reuse: estimating the probability of transmitting bloodborne disease. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31:748–754.