Kampman Jasper M, Sperna Weiland Nicolaas H
Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Centre for Sustainable Healthcare, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Centre for Sustainable Healthcare, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Br J Anaesth. 2025 Jun;134(6):1606-1609. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2025.03.005. Epub 2025 Apr 17.
An environmental impact study compared the carbon footprint of three large French hospitals, one that used >99% total intravenous anaesthesia, one that used target-controlled inhalation anaesthesia, and one that used manually optimised fresh gas flow. We consider these results with previously published environmental impact analyses to determine which mode of anaesthesia is most environmentally friendly. Current understanding in the field following the triple bottom line of 'patient, planet, profit' informs an evidence-based recommendation around the optimal default mode of anaesthesia.
一项环境影响研究比较了法国三家大型医院的碳足迹，一家医院使用了超过99%的全静脉麻醉，一家使用目标控制吸入麻醉，还有一家使用手动优化的新鲜气体流量。我们结合之前发表的环境影响分析来考量这些结果，以确定哪种麻醉方式对环境最为友好。该领域目前遵循“患者、地球、利润”三重底线的认知为围绕最佳默认麻醉模式提供了基于证据的建议。
