Volatile anaesthetics are potent greenhouse gasses but contemporary workstations enable considerable savings while improving patient safety. Institutions may provide this technology to reduce the ecological footprint but proper training and motivation is required to maximize their ecologic and financial benefit. This study aims to compare the sevoflurane consumption of 22 anaesthesiologists in a medium sized hospital 4 years after flow-i workstations (Getinge, Sweden) entered into service, in three airway approaches: intubated patients, laryngeal mask ventilation, and mask anaesthesia. Typical sevoflurane consumption for each anaesthesiologist was defined as the mean cumulative consumption in the chronologically first 50 cases meeting the inclusion criteria for each airway group in 2019. The potential savings, if everyone were to adopt the approach of the more economical anaesthesiologists (15th percentile), was calculated. The CO2 equivalent emissions were calculated using a GWP20 of 702 and a GWP100 of 195. The median [range] consumption after 45 min was 10.9 [7.5-18.4] ml in intubated patients and 9.0 [7.4-15.3] ml in patients with laryngeal mask, and 9.9 [3.4-20.9] ml after 8 min with mask ventilation. This corresponds to a double to six fold consumption between the least and most wasteful approach. The typical CO2 equivalent emissions (GWP20) per anaesthesiologist varied between 8.0 and 19.6 kg/45 min in intubated airways, between 7.9 and 16.3 kg/45 min in LMA, and between 3.6 and 22.3 kg/8 min in mask ventilation. Despite using the same workstations in the same hospital, the typical sevoflurane consumption differed dramatically between 22 anaesthesiologists. In addition to providing advanced workstations, proper education is required to achieve the behavior change needed to reduce the pollution and financial waste associated with volatile anaesthetics.
Keywords: Automated gas control; Flow-i; Pollution; Volatile anaesthetics.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.