Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2013 Jan;41(1):95-101.

Financial and environmental costs of manual versus automated control of end-tidal gas concentrations.

Author information

1
Department of Anaesthesia, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. stanley.tay@nt.gov.au

Abstract

Emerging technologies that reduce the economic and environmental costs of anaesthesia have had limited assessment. We hypothesised that automated control of end-tidal gases, a new feature in anaesthesia machines, will consistently reduce volatile agent consumption cost and greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the planned replacement of anaesthesia machines in a tertiary hospital, we performed a prospective before and after study comparing the cost and greenhouse gas emissions of isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane when using manual versus automated control of end-tidal gases. We analysed 3675 general anaesthesia cases with inhalational agents: 1865 using manual control and 1810 using automated control. Volatile agent cost was $18.87/hour using manual control and $13.82/hour using automated control: mean decrease $5.05/hour (95% confidence interval: $0.88-9.22/hour, P=0.0243). The 100-year global warming potential decreased from 23.2 kg/hour of carbon dioxide equivalents to 13.0 kg/hour: mean decrease 10.2 kg/hour (95% confidence interval: 2.7-17.7 kg/hour, P=0.0179). Automated control reduced costs by 27%. Greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 44%, a greater than expected decrease facilitated by a proportional reduction in desflurane use. Automated control of end-tidal gases increases participation in low flow anaesthesia with economic and environmental benefits.

PMID:
23362897
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Australian Society of Anaesthetists
    Loading ...
    Support Center