Infectious diseases now · 2026
The environmental impacts and costs of cefotaxime versus ceftriaxone: An example drawn from Paris hospitals.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Raphaël Etienne, Huynh Samantha, Siorat Virginie, Sokal Aurélien, Blez Damien, Degrassat-Théas Albane, Réveillon-Istin Mathilde, Lefort Agnès, Lepeule Raphaël
Аннотация
CONTEXT: While health-related carbon emissions are a recognizably increasing concern, the environmental impacts of choosing cefotaxime over ceftriaxone have yet to be assessed on a hospital-wide scale.
METHODS: We collected data on antibiotic consumption from 38 university hospitals in 2023. Using the new Carebone® tool, the respective carbon footprints of antibiotics and medical devices were calculated by life cycle assessment.
RESULTS: Daily cefotaxime administration (1 g q8h) generates 5.40 kgCO₂eq (±48%), costs €5.5, and produces 274 g of waste, compared with 1.78 kgCO₂eq (±48%), €1.4, and 88 g of waste from ceftriaxone (1 g q24h). Seven hospitals have already implemented policies replacing ceftriaxone with cefotaxime. Similar policies in all 38 hospitals participating in the survey would annually generate 392,543 kgCO₂eq, 20 tons of waste and an additional cost of €440,713. Conversely, replacing cefotaxime with ceftriaxone could save 436,579 kgCO₂e, 22 tons of waste and €490,154 annually.
CONCLUSIONS: Policies favoring cefotaxime have environmental and economic costs that should be integrated into antibiotic stewardship recommendations alongside other factors (resistance selection, etc.).
METHODS: We collected data on antibiotic consumption from 38 university hospitals in 2023. Using the new Carebone® tool, the respective carbon footprints of antibiotics and medical devices were calculated by life cycle assessment.
RESULTS: Daily cefotaxime administration (1 g q8h) generates 5.40 kgCO₂eq (±48%), costs €5.5, and produces 274 g of waste, compared with 1.78 kgCO₂eq (±48%), €1.4, and 88 g of waste from ceftriaxone (1 g q24h). Seven hospitals have already implemented policies replacing ceftriaxone with cefotaxime. Similar policies in all 38 hospitals participating in the survey would annually generate 392,543 kgCO₂eq, 20 tons of waste and an additional cost of €440,713. Conversely, replacing cefotaxime with ceftriaxone could save 436,579 kgCO₂e, 22 tons of waste and €490,154 annually.
CONCLUSIONS: Policies favoring cefotaxime have environmental and economic costs that should be integrated into antibiotic stewardship recommendations alongside other factors (resistance selection, etc.).