Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Editor,
Single-use items are frequently used for central venous catheter (CVC) insertions. In a previous study comparing a single-use kit to a kit containing reusable metal items, it was found that the carbon footprint was lower for the single-use kit, whereas the reusable kit was cheaper [1]. We wanted to re-examine these findings in a contemporary European setting and to extend the scope of the analysis to include textiles and assessment of additional environmental impact categories.
We used life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to assess the effects on resource use, climate change, ecosystem quality and human health [2] of items commonly used during CVC insertions. We compared a kit consisting of a reusable bowl, scissors, haemostatic forceps, and needle holder (instruments) and a reusable gown and drape (textiles), a kit consisting of the reusable instruments and single-use textiles and a kit with only single-use items (Fig. 1, see supplementary Table S1-3). Our primary model was based on input data collected at a Swedish Hospital. Sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo analyses were used to assess uncertainties and differences between the kits [3]. The results are presented as medians and 2.5th to 97.5th percentiles. We used life cycle costing to assess financial costs (see supplementary Table S4).
The kit with reusable instruments and reusable textiles had a 65% lower impact on resource use compared to the single-use kit [∆: 27 MJ primary (19–33)], a 90% lower impact on climate change [∆: 2.1 kg-CO2eq (1.9–2.5)], an 85% lower impact on ecosystem quality [∆: 3 PDF*m2*yr (1.6–4.5)], and a 95% lower impact on human health [∆: 5.8 × 10–6 DALY/person/yr (4.8 × 10–6-7.1 × 10–6)] (Fig. 1). The results were largely robust in sensitivity analyses (supplementary Fig. S1). The kit with reusable instruments and single-use textiles had about 20% lower impact on resource use and climate change compared to the single-use kit and about 70% lower impact on ecosystem quality and human health (Fig. 1). The results were largely robust in sensitivity analyses (supplementary Fig. S2). The cost of the kit with reusable instruments and reusable textiles was €5.7 compared to €9.1 and €9.2 of the two other kits (supplementary Table S5). Additional results and detailed description of the methodology are found in the electronic supplementary material (ESM).
In contrast to the study by McGain et al. [1], we found that the reusable kit was associated with a lower climate impact than the single-use kit. This is mainly explained by the inclusion of sterile textiles in our analysis, but the low carbon electricity mix and lower energy use in our primary model also contribute (supplementary Fig. S4). The fact that we used consumption data for the washer-disinfector and autoclave provided by the manufacturer and excluded standby time and test runs from our analysis, instead of the site-specific data used by McGain et al., also contributed to the lower climate impact. Furthermore, different loading capacities of the autoclaves and washer–disinfectors led to different allocations. While we allocated 1.7% and 6.7% of the autoclave and washer–disinfector’s energy consumption to the reusable CVC kit, respectively, McGain et al. allocated 2.3 and 3.1%, respectively. We note that in our sensitivity analysis using an average European electricity mix, the climate impact of the reusable kit approaches that of the reusable kit in the McGain et al. study. Taken together, the above emphasize the need to consider both scope and local context when interpreting LCA results [4, 5].
A major finding in our study was that the change from single-use to reusable textiles during CVC insertions dramatically reduced the environmental impact on resource use and climate change. The production of sterile single-use textiles represents 65–85% of the total impact on resource use and climate change for the kits using single-use textiles (supplementary Fig. S4). This result highlights an area which could be targeted to reduce the environmental impact of not only CVC insertions, but also of other procedures requiring sterile textiles.
We conclude that the use of CVC-insertion kits containing reusable metal instruments and reusable textiles offer a robust opportunity to reduce the environmental impacts and financial costs of CVC insertions in a European setting, compared to the use of kits containing solely single-use items.
References
McGain F, McAlister S, McGavin A, Story D (2012) A life cycle assessment of reusable and single-use central venous catheter insertion kits. Anesth Analg 114:1073–1080. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31824e9b69
Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505
Von Brömssen C, Röös E (2020) Why statistical testing and confidence intervals should not be used in comparative life cycle assessments based on Monte Carlo simulations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:2101–2105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01827-4
McGain F, Moore G, Black J (2017) Steam sterilisation’s energy and water footprint. Aust Health Rev 41:26–32. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15142
McGain F, Moore G, Black J (2016) Hospital steam sterilizer usage: could we switch off to save electricity and water? J Health Serv Res Policy 21:166–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819615625698
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hemberg, L., Wessberg, N., Leire, C. et al. Environmental impact of single-use and reusable items in central venous catheter insertion kits: a life cycle assessment. Intensive Care Med 49, 662–664 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07078-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07078-9