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

Pantoprazole infusion as adjuvant therapy to endoscopic treatment in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: Prospective randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background and Aim: Following successful endoscopic therapy in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, rebleeding occurs in 20% of patients. Rebleeding remains the most important determinant of poor prognosis. We investigated whether or not administration of pantoprazole infusion would improve the outcome in ulcer bleeding following successful endoscopic therapy. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective trial, patients who had gastric or duodenal ulcers with active bleeding or non-bleeding visible vessel received combined endoscopy therapy with injection of epinephrine and heater probe application. Patients who achieved hemostasis were randomly assigned to receive pantoprazole (80 mg intravenous bolus followed by an infusion at a rate of 8 mg per hour) or placebo for 72 h. The primary end-point was the rate of rebleeding. Results: Rebleeding was lower in the pantoprazole group (8 of 102 patients, 7.8%) than in the placebo group (20 of 101 patients, 19.8%; P = 0.01). Patients in the pantoprazole group required significantly fewer transfusions (1 ± 2.5 vs 2 ± 3.3; P = 0.003) and days of hospitalization (5.6 ± 5.3 vs 7.7 ± 7.3; P = 0.0003). Rescue therapies were needed more frequently in the placebo group (7.8% vs 19.8%; P = 0.01). Three (2.9%) patients in the pantoprazole group and eight (7.9%) in the placebo group required surgery to control their bleeding ( P = 0.12). Two patients in the pantoprazole group and four in the placebo group died ( P = 0.45). Conclusion: In patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, the use of high dose pantoprazole infusion following successful endoscopic therapy is effective in reducing rebleeding, transfusion requirements and hospital stay