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

Prevalence of Antibodies to Four Human Coronaviruses Is Lower in Nasal Secretions than in Serum ▿

Little is known about the prevalence of mucosal antibodies induced by infection with human coronaviruses (HCoV), including HCoV-229E and -OC43 and recently described strains (HCoV-NL63 and -HKU1). By enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, we measured anti-HCoV IgG antibodies in serum and IgA antibodies in nasal wash specimens collected at seven U.S. sites from 105 adults aged 50 years and older (mean age, 67 ± 9 years) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Most patients (95 [90%]) had at least one more chronic disease. More patients had serum antibody to each HCoV strain (104 [99%] had antibody to HCoV-229E, 105 [100%] had antibody to HCoV-OC43, 103 [98%] had antibody to HCoV-NL63, and 96 [91%] had antibody to HCoV-HKU1) than had antibody to each HCoV strain in nasal wash specimens (12 [11%] had antibody to HCoV-229E, 22 [22%] had antibody to HCoV-OC43, 8 [8%] had antibody to HCoV-NL63, and 31 [31%] had antibody to HCoV-HKU1), respectively (P < 0.0001). The proportions of subjects with IgA antibodies in nasal wash specimens and the geometric mean IgA antibody titers were statistically higher for HCoV-OC43 and -HKU1 than for HCoV-229E and -NL63. A higher proportion of patients with heart disease than not had IgA antibodies to HCoV-NL63 (6 [16%] versus 2 [3%]; P = 0.014). Correlations were highest for serum antibody titers between group I strains (HCoV-229E and -NL63 [r = 0.443; P < 0.0001]) and between group II strains (HCoV-OC43 and -HKU1 [r = 0.603; P < 0.0001]) and not statistically significant between HCoV-NL63 and -OC43 and between HCoV-NL63 and -HKU1. Patients likely had experienced infections with more than one HCoV strain, and IgG antibodies to these HCoV strains in serum were more likely to be detected than IgA antibodies to these HCoV strains in nasal wash specimens

Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury

The optimal intensity of renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury is controversial. We randomly assigned critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and failure of at least one nonrenal organ or sepsis to receive intensive or less intensive renal-replacement therapy. The primary end point was death from any cause by day 60. In both study groups, hemodynamically stable patients underwent intermittent hemodialysis, and hemodynamically unstable patients underwent continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration or sustained low-efficiency dialysis. Patients receiving the intensive treatment strategy underwent intermittent hemodialysis and sustained low-efficiency dialysis six times per week and continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 35 ml per kilogram of body weight per hour; for patients receiving the less-intensive treatment strategy, the corresponding treatments were provided thrice weekly and at 20 ml per kilogram per hour. Baseline characteristics of the 1124 patients in the two groups were similar. The rate of death from any cause by day 60 was 53.6% with intensive therapy and 51.5% with less-intensive therapy (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.40; P=0.47). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the duration of renal-replacement therapy or the rate of recovery of kidney function or nonrenal organ failure. Hypotension during intermittent dialysis occurred in more patients randomly assigned to receive intensive therapy, although the frequency of hemodialysis sessions complicated by hypotension was similar in the two groups. Intensive renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury did not decrease mortality, improve recovery of kidney function, or reduce the rate of nonrenal organ failure as compared with less-intensive therapy involving a defined dose of intermittent hemodialysis three times per week and continuous renal-replacement therapy at 20 ml per kilogram per hour. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00076219.