Effect of a non-reactive absorbent with or without environmentally oriented electronic feedback on anesthesia provider's fresh gas flow rates: A greening initiative
Authors' conclusion
This study showed that introducing a non-reactive absorbent did not significantly alter FGF. Using environmentally oriented electronic feedback relying on data analytics did not result in significantly reduced provider-specific FGF.
Study context
- Population
- Anesthesia providers (anesthesiology trainees, certified registered nurse anesthetists, solo anesthesiologists) in the operating room
- Participants
- 157 anesthesia providers
- Exposure
- Non-reactive CO2 absorbent (AMSORB® Plus) vs traditional absorbent (Medisorb™); environmentally oriented electronic feedback vs historical data
- Outcome
- Dual: difference in average daily FGF during maintenance anesthesia (AMSORB® Plus vs Medisorb™); provider-specific change in average FGF after 12 weeks of feedback and education vs historical data
Methodological detailssingle-centre, greening initiative, historical comparison
- Single-centre
- Greening initiative
- Historical comparison
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Mean
- 80 ml/min
97.5% CI - 206 to 46P = 0.15
AMSORB® Plus vs Medisorb™ · FGF; not significant
Mean
−112 ml/min
97.5% CI - 244 to 21P = 0.059
Feedback vs Historical · provider-specific mean FGF; not significant
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Effect of a non-reactive absorbent with or without environmentally oriented electronic feedback on anesthesia provider's fresh gas flow rates: A greening initiative. J Clin Anesth. Published 7 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →