AIRR - ANZCA Institutional Research Repository
Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11055/1106
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZhong, Gen_US
dc.contributor.authorAbbas, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorJones, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorKong, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcCulloch, Ten_US
dc.date2020-08-25-
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-17T05:58:03Z-
dc.date.available2021-09-17T05:58:03Z-
dc.identifier.citation125(5):773-778en_US
dc.identifier.issn0007-0912en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11055/1106-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Increasing fresh gas flow (FGF) to a circle breathing system reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbent consumption. We assessed the environmental and economic impacts of this trade-off between gas flow and absorbent consumption when no inhalational anaesthetic agent is used. Methods: A test lung with fixed CO2 inflow was ventilated via a circle breathing system of an anaesthetic machine (Dräger Primus or GE Aisys CS2) using an FGF of 1, 2, 4, or 6 L min-1. We recorded the time to exhaustion of the CO2 absorbent canister, defined as when inspired partial pressure of CO2 exceeded 0.3 kPa. For each FGF, we calculated the economic costs and the environmental impact associated with the manufacture of the CO2 absorbent canister and the supply of medical air and oxygen. Environmental impact was measured in 100 yr global-warming potential, analysed using a life cycle assessment 'cradle to grave' approach. Results: Increasing FGF from 1 to 6 L min-1 was associated with up to 93% reduction in the combined running cost with minimal net change to the 100 yr global-warming potential. Most of the reduction in cost occurred between 4 and 6 L min-1. Removing the CO2 absorbent from the circle system, and further increasing FGF to control CO2 rebreathing, afforded minimal further economic benefit, but more than doubled the global-warming potential. Conclusions: In the absence of inhalational anaesthetic agents, increasing FGF to 6 L min-1 reduces running cost compared with lower FGFs, with minimal impact to the environment.en_US
dc.subjectanaesthesia machineen_US
dc.subjectcarbon dioxide absorbenten_US
dc.subjectcost analysisen_US
dc.subjectfresh gas flowen_US
dc.subjectlife cycle assessmenten_US
dc.subjectmechanical ventilationen_US
dc.subjecttotal intravenous anaesthesiaen_US
dc.titleEnvironmental and economic impact of using increased fresh gas flow to reduce carbon dioxide absorbent consumption in the absence of inhalational anaestheticsen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.contentTexten_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleBritish Journal of Anaesthesiaen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.bja.2020.07.043en_US
dc.description.affiliatesConcord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydneyen_US
dc.description.affiliatesThe University of Sydneyen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32859360/en_US
dc.type.studyortrialStudyen_US
local.message.claim2023-08-24T20:34:42.753+1000|||rp00279|||submit_approve|||dc_contributor_author|||None*
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
Appears in Collections:Scholarly and Clinical
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

440
checked on May 23, 2026

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.