Annals of intensive care · 2025
Which carbon footprint for my ICU? Benchmark, hot spots and perspectives.
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.
Bardoult Pierre, Cadic Elodie, Brichory Olivier, Marie Véronique, Rouxel Caroline, Millet Christophe, Daudin Magalie, Peguet Elodie, Massart Nicolas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify the main greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting activities or products among the medical devices (MD) and medicines used in a polyvalent Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
METHODS: A pragmatic eco-audit was conducted in a 21-beds polyvalent ICU, in Saint-Brieuc, Bretagne, France. It consisted of estimating GHG emissions of products or activities, considering process-based life cycle analysis (LCA), economic input-output analysis (EIO) and hybrid-LCA. Results were expressed as Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) emissions per patient-day considering each medication and MD (including personal protective equipment).
RESULTS: With remaining uncertainty, GHG emissions were estimated at 61.1 kgCO2e per patient-day. Two hundred and two individual MD were used per patient-day, equivalent to 5.1 kgCO2e per patient-day (process-based LCA). Gloves accounted for the main part of kgCO2e emissions (representing 1.8 kgCO2e per patient-day). Then, syringes (1.1 kgCO2e per patient-day), perfusion tubings (1.0 per patient-day) and gauze pads (0.4 kgCO2e per patient-day) were the most important sources of MD related GHG emissions. Forty-seven individual medicines were used per patient-day. Most consumed medications were sterile water for injection, propofol, and sodium chlorure. The GHG emissions of medications were estimated with EIO-LCA at 21.5 kgCO2e per patient-day, mostly due to injectable medicines (15.3 kgCO2e per patient-day).
CONCLUSION: Upcoming studies focusing on actions on these particular hot spots would be of interest in order to significantly decrease GHG emissions but also to increase resilience of critical care.
METHODS: A pragmatic eco-audit was conducted in a 21-beds polyvalent ICU, in Saint-Brieuc, Bretagne, France. It consisted of estimating GHG emissions of products or activities, considering process-based life cycle analysis (LCA), economic input-output analysis (EIO) and hybrid-LCA. Results were expressed as Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) emissions per patient-day considering each medication and MD (including personal protective equipment).
RESULTS: With remaining uncertainty, GHG emissions were estimated at 61.1 kgCO2e per patient-day. Two hundred and two individual MD were used per patient-day, equivalent to 5.1 kgCO2e per patient-day (process-based LCA). Gloves accounted for the main part of kgCO2e emissions (representing 1.8 kgCO2e per patient-day). Then, syringes (1.1 kgCO2e per patient-day), perfusion tubings (1.0 per patient-day) and gauze pads (0.4 kgCO2e per patient-day) were the most important sources of MD related GHG emissions. Forty-seven individual medicines were used per patient-day. Most consumed medications were sterile water for injection, propofol, and sodium chlorure. The GHG emissions of medications were estimated with EIO-LCA at 21.5 kgCO2e per patient-day, mostly due to injectable medicines (15.3 kgCO2e per patient-day).
CONCLUSION: Upcoming studies focusing on actions on these particular hot spots would be of interest in order to significantly decrease GHG emissions but also to increase resilience of critical care.