Acinos alpinus and Ziziphora hispanica: Phenolic Profile, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Properties of Hydromethanolic Extracts from Aerial Parts

Acinos alpinus and Ziziphora hispanica belonging to the Lamiaceae family are well-known for their biological properties. The phenolic composition was characterized using HPLC coupled to photodiode array and electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. The antioxidant capacity was assessed by 2,2′-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical and ferric reducing antioxidant power assays. The antibacterial activity was evaluated by disc-diffusion and broth micro-dilution methods. A total of 53 phenolic compounds were identified in both extracts, with the predominance of caffeoylquinic acid isomers with a content of 2.09 mg/g in A. alpinus extract, while coumarylquinic acid isomers with a content of 17.33 mg/g was determined in Z. hispanica extract. The Acinos alpinus extract displayed the highest radical scavenging activity (IC50 DPPH = 3.226±0.035 mg/mL) and reducing power (EC50 FRAP = 3.792±0.001 mg/mL), followed by Z. hispanica extract with IC50 DPPH value of 7.265±0.209 mg/mL, and EC50 FRAP value of 24.689± 0.106 mg/mL. Furthermore, both A. alpinus and Z. hispanica extracts exhibited a bactericidal effect against six pathogenic bacteria with a MIC value from 4.16 to 33.33 mg/mL. On the basis of the results achieved, the aerial parts of Moroccan Acinos alpinus and Ziziphora hispanica might be used as natural agents in the food and pharmaceutical field

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries