The Sustainable ICU: Practical Strategies for Reducing Medicine's Climate Footprint

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Healthcare systems contribute approximately 4-5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with intensive care units (ICUs) representing a disproportionately carbon-intensive sector due to high energy consumption, extensive use of single-use plastics, pharmaceutical waste, and volatile anesthetic agents. As climate change increasingly threatens global health through extreme weather events, infectious disease spread, and resource scarcity, critical care physicians have both an ethical imperative and practical opportunity to reduce medicine's environmental impact. This review provides evidence-based strategies for creating sustainable ICUs while maintaining patient safety and care quality, offering actionable interventions that integrate environmental stewardship into daily critical care practice.

---

The Carbon Cost of Critical Care: Quantifying the Impact of Volatile Anesthetics, Single-Use Plastics, and Energy Use

Understanding ICU Carbon Footprint

ICUs generate carbon emissions through three primary scopes: direct emissions (Scope 1), indirect emissions from purchased energy (Scope 2), and supply chain emissions (Scope 3). A single ICU bed generates approximately 30 kg CO₂-equivalent daily—nearly three times that of a standard hospital bed.¹ The average tertiary care ICU produces carbon emissions comparable to 1,000 transatlantic flights annually.²

Pearl: The healthcare sector's carbon footprint, if it were a country, would rank as the fifth-largest emitter globally.³

Volatile Anesthetic Agents: The Invisible Climate Culprits

Volatile anesthetics—particularly desflurane and, to a lesser extent, sevoflurane and isoflurane—possess potent greenhouse gas properties with global warming potentials (GWP) vastly exceeding CO₂. Desflurane has a GWP of 2,540 over 100 years, making one hour of desflurane anesthesia at 1 MAC equivalent to driving 470 km in a modern car.⁴ In contrast, sevoflurane's GWP is 130, and isoflurane's is 510.

A 2020 study quantified that switching from desflurane to sevoflurane across UK National Health Service could eliminate carbon emissions equivalent to 350,000 homes' annual energy use.⁵ Many institutions, including Yale-New Haven Hospital and NHS England, have eliminated desflurane entirely from their formularies without compromising anesthetic outcomes.⁶

Hack: When volatile agents are necessary, using low fresh gas flows (<1 L/min) can reduce anesthetic waste by up to 75% while maintaining adequate anesthetic depth.⁷

Single-Use Plastics: The Disposable Dilemma

ICUs are plastic-intensive environments where single-patient-use items have become standard following concerns about infection transmission and prion diseases in the 1990s. However, this "disposable culture" has created enormous waste streams. Studies estimate that 20-25% of hospital waste originates from ICUs, with 15-25% of this being plastic.⁸

A typical ICU patient generates 10-13 kg of waste daily, compared to 2-3 kg for ward patients.⁹ Common culprits include:

• Disposable laryngoscope blades and handles
• Single-use bronchoscopes and ultrasound probe covers
• Plastic packaging for sterile supplies
• Disposable blood pressure cuffs and pulse oximeter probes

Oyster: Not all "single-use" items require disposal after one patient. Many devices labeled for single use are reprocessed safely in other countries with robust regulatory frameworks, suggesting opportunities for evidence-based protocol revision.

Energy Consumption: The Continuous Power Drain

ICUs operate 24/7 with intensive lighting, climate control, medical equipment, and monitoring systems. Energy use per square meter in ICUs is 2.5-3 times higher than general wards.¹⁰ Major energy consumers include:

• HVAC systems maintaining strict temperature and humidity parameters (40-45% of total energy)
• Medical devices and monitoring equipment (25-30%)
• Lighting (15-20%)
• Computers and information systems (10-15%)¹¹

---

Green Inhalational Anesthesia and Low-Flow Ventilation Strategies

Transitioning to Environmentally Preferable Anesthetics

Total Intravenous Anesthesia (TIVA): Propofol-based TIVA produces 10-20 times less carbon emissions than volatile agent-based anesthesia.¹² Modern target-controlled infusion systems enable precise delivery with rapid emergence and comparable hemodynamic profiles to inhalational techniques.

Pearl: A meta-analysis of 82 studies showed no significant difference in major complications between TIVA and volatile anesthesia, with TIVA demonstrating reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting.¹³

Practical Implementation Strategy:

1. Establish institutional preference for TIVA as default anesthetic
2. Reserve volatile agents for specific indications (e.g., malignant hyperthermia risk, difficult airway management)
3. When volatiles are necessary, select sevoflurane over desflurane
4. Implement electronic prescribing alerts for desflurane, requiring justification

Low-Flow and Minimal-Flow Anesthesia

Low-flow anesthesia (fresh gas flow <1 L/min) and minimal-flow anesthesia (<0.5 L/min) dramatically reduce volatile agent consumption and greenhouse gas emissions while decreasing costs. Modern anesthesia machines with reflector technology and advanced monitoring enable safe low-flow techniques.¹⁴

Implementation Hack:

• Use high flows (4-6 L/min) only during induction (first 5-10 minutes)
• Transition to 0.5-1 L/min for maintenance
• Monitor FiO₂, inspired volatile concentration, and end-tidal CO₂ continuously
• This approach reduces volatile agent use by 60-75% compared to traditional high-flow methods¹⁵

Scavenging System Optimization

Anesthetic gas scavenging systems capture waste gases but many are inefficiently designed, using excessive vacuum pressure and venting to atmosphere rather than capturing for destruction. Active scavenging systems should operate at -0.5 to -3.0 cm H₂O to avoid excessive environmental release.¹⁶

Emerging Technology: Anesthetic gas capture and destruction systems (e.g., Deltasorb, Sedana Medical) can reduce volatile emissions by >95%, though currently expensive and not widely adopted.¹⁷

---

Re-evaluating "Single-Use" Device Protocols for Reprocessing and Reuse

The Evidence Base for Reprocessing

The assumption that all single-use devices (SUDs) must be discarded after one use lacks robust evidence in many cases. The FDA's reprocessing program and similar European regulatory frameworks have validated safe reprocessing of numerous devices originally marketed as single-use.¹⁸

Critical Safety Considerations:

1. Device classification and infection risk (Spaulding criteria)
2. Material integrity after reprocessing
3. Functional performance maintenance
4. Regulatory compliance and liability considerations

Practical Reprocessing Opportunities

High-Impact Targets:

Pulse Oximeter Probes: Reusable probes reduce waste by 90% compared to disposables, with equivalent accuracy and no increased infection risk when properly cleaned.¹⁹

Laryngoscope Handles and Blades: Stainless steel reusable equipment eliminates thousands of plastic disposables annually per ICU. Studies show no increased infection transmission with proper high-level disinfection.²⁰

Blood Pressure Cuffs: Reusable cuffs with removable, launderable covers are clinically equivalent to disposables with dramatically reduced environmental impact.²¹

Oyster Alert: Electrophysiology catheters, cardiac catheterization equipment, and certain respiratory devices represent significant cost-saving and waste-reduction opportunities through third-party reprocessing programs, though regulatory landscapes vary internationally.²²

Building a Reprocessing Program

1. Conduct device audit: Identify high-volume SUDs without strong infection risk rationale
2. Literature review: Assess evidence for safe reprocessing
3. Regulatory consultation: Engage with institutional compliance and risk management
4. Pilot program: Start with low-risk devices (e.g., pulse oximeters, BP cuffs)
5. Staff education: Address infection concerns with evidence-based data
6. Monitor outcomes: Track infection rates, device functionality, and cost savings

Hack: Partner with validated third-party reprocessing companies for complex devices rather than attempting in-house reprocessing of sophisticated equipment.

---

Reducing Pharmaceutical Waste and Environmentally Preferable Purchasing

The Hidden Environmental Cost of Pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceutical production is carbon-intensive, with the pharmaceutical supply chain contributing 55% of healthcare's Scope 3 emissions.²³ Additionally, unused medications disposed to waste or sewage systems create environmental contamination, with antimicrobial resistance genes and active pharmaceutical ingredients detected in waterways globally.²⁴

Medication Waste Reduction Strategies

Dose Optimization and Vial Sharing:

• Use weight-based dosing calculators to minimize over-preparation
• Implement "vial-sharing" protocols for stable medications used by multiple patients within appropriate timeframes
• A study showed potential 40% reduction in wastage of expensive biologics through systematic vial-sharing programs²⁵

Pearl: Pre-filled syringes and standardized concentrations reduce preparation waste but must be balanced against the higher packaging waste of individually-packaged products.

Antimicrobial Stewardship as Environmental Stewardship: Antibiotic overuse drives resistance, requires production of increasingly complex agents, and contaminates ecosystems. Robust antimicrobial stewardship programs that optimize spectrum and duration serve both patient safety and environmental goals.²⁶

Inhaler Selection: Metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) use hydrofluoroalkane propellants with high GWP (1,430), while dry powder inhalers have negligible climate impact. Where clinically appropriate, preferring DPIs reduces carbon footprint by 10-40 times per treatment year.²⁷

Hack: Create "medication sustainability scorecards" that integrate carbon footprint data into formulary decisions alongside traditional efficacy, safety, and cost considerations.

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing

Sustainable Procurement Principles:

1. Vendor engagement: Require environmental sustainability reporting from suppliers
2. Minimal packaging: Prefer bulk purchasing and minimal packaging options
3. Local sourcing: Reduce transportation emissions through regional procurement when possible
4. Recycled content: Prioritize products with recycled materials
5. End-of-life planning: Select products with established recycling or take-back programs²⁸

Oyster: The cheapest product isn't always most sustainable, but lifecycle cost analyses often reveal that sustainable products offer long-term savings through reduced waste disposal costs and efficiency gains.²⁹

---

Building a "Green Team" and Integrating Sustainability into ICU Quality Improvement

Establishing an ICU Sustainability Program

Multidisciplinary Team Composition:

• ICU physicians and nurses (clinical champions)
• Environmental services and facilities management
• Pharmacy representatives
• Supply chain/procurement specialists
• Quality improvement specialists
• Hospital administration/leadership
• Sustainability officers (if available)

Pearl: Engage frontline bedside nurses early—they are closest to daily waste generation and device use, making their buy-in essential for sustainable practice change.³⁰

Framework for Sustainable Quality Improvement

Apply Traditional QI Methodology:

1. Measure and Benchmark

• Conduct waste audits (segregated waste streams, contamination rates)
• Calculate carbon footprint using established tools (e.g., NHS Carbon Calculator, GGHH Footprint tool)
• Track anesthetic agent consumption and fresh gas flow rates
• Monitor energy consumption per patient-day

2. Identify High-Impact Targets

• Use Pareto principle: 20% of items typically generate 80% of environmental impact
• Focus on high-volume, high-impact interventions (e.g., desflurane elimination, reusable equipment)

3. Implement PDSA Cycles

• Start with small, measurable interventions
• Collect data on clinical safety, staff satisfaction, and environmental outcomes
• Iterate based on results

4. Sustain and Spread

• Integrate into orientation and continuing education
• Display visual performance dashboards
• Celebrate successes and share lessons learned

Overcoming Barriers to Implementation

Common Challenges and Solutions:

Resistance to change: Address through education highlighting co-benefits (cost savings, reduced clutter, improved efficiency) alongside environmental rationale.³¹

Infection prevention concerns: Partner with infection control, present evidence, and pilot programs with rigorous infection surveillance.

Perceived cost implications: Conduct comprehensive cost analyses including waste disposal, storage, and lifecycle costs, not just acquisition costs.

Regulatory uncertainty: Engage institutional legal and compliance teams early; many perceived barriers are institutional policy rather than regulatory requirements.

Hack: Frame sustainability initiatives as "patient safety" and "quality improvement" projects rather than purely environmental efforts—this resonates with clinical culture and aligns with institutional priorities.³²

Measuring Success Beyond Carbon

Comprehensive Metrics:

• Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO₂-equivalent per patient-day)
• Waste generation (kg per patient-day, segregated by stream)
• Energy consumption (kWh per patient-day)
• Water usage (liters per patient-day)
• Cost savings (dollars saved through efficiency gains)
• Anesthetic agent consumption (minimum alveolar concentration-hours)
• Staff engagement (participation rates, satisfaction surveys)
• Patient safety metrics (infection rates, device failures)

Pearl: The most successful programs demonstrate the "triple bottom line"—simultaneously improving environmental sustainability, financial performance, and clinical quality.³³

Education and Culture Change

Integrate Sustainability into Training:

• Include environmental stewardship in critical care fellowship curricula
• Develop simulation scenarios highlighting low-flow techniques
• Create competencies around sustainable prescribing and device selection

Leverage Behavioral Science:

• Default settings favor sustainable choices (e.g., TIVA as pre-selected option)
• Real-time feedback systems displaying environmental impact
• Social norms messaging highlighting peer behaviors³⁴

Oyster: Younger healthcare professionals increasingly consider organizational sustainability commitments when selecting employers, making visible environmental programs a recruitment and retention tool.³⁵

---

Conclusion

The climate crisis represents an existential threat to global health, and healthcare systems paradoxically contribute significantly to this challenge. ICUs, as resource-intensive environments, offer substantial opportunities for meaningful carbon reduction through evidence-based interventions that maintain or enhance patient care quality.

Practical strategies include transitioning to TIVA and low-flow anesthetic techniques, thoughtfully re-evaluating single-use device protocols, optimizing pharmaceutical use and purchasing, and systematically reducing energy consumption. Success requires multidisciplinary collaboration, leadership commitment, and integration of sustainability principles into quality improvement frameworks.

The intensivist's role extends beyond the individual patient to encompass population and planetary health. By implementing the strategies outlined in this review, critical care practitioners can demonstrate environmental stewardship while optimizing resource utilization, reducing costs, and maintaining the highest standards of patient safety—truly a win-win-win for patients, institutions, and the planet.

Final Pearl: Start somewhere. Even a single intervention—eliminating desflurane, switching to reusable pulse oximeters, or establishing a Green Team—begins the journey toward a sustainable ICU. Perfect should not be the enemy of good in addressing medicine's climate footprint.

---

References

1. McGain F, Muret J, Lawson C, Sherman JD. Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(5):680-692.

2. Overcash M. A comparison of reusable and disposable perioperative textiles: sustainability state-of-the-art 2012. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(5):1055-1066.

3. Health Care Without Harm. Health care's climate footprint: How the health sector contributes to the global climate crisis and opportunities for action. 2019.

4. Sherman JD, Le C, Lamers V, Eckelman M. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic drugs. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(5):1086-1090.

5. Vollmer MK, Rhew RC, Rigby M, Hofstetter D, Hill M, Schilt F, Reimann S. Modern inhalation anesthetics: Potent greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere. Geophys Res Lett. 2015;42(5):1606-1611.

6. NHS England. Anaesthetic and Respiratory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Toolkit. 2022.

7. Feldman JM. Managing fresh gas flow to reduce environmental contamination. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(5):1093-1101.

8. Karliner J, Slotterback S, Boyd R, Ashby B, Steele K. Health care's climate footprint: the health sector contribution and opportunities for action. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30(Supplement_5):ckaa165.843.

9. McGain F, Story D, Kayak E, Kashima Y, McAlister S. Workplace sustainability: the "Cradle to Grave" view of what we do. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(5):1134-1139.

10. Dettenkofer M, Griesshammer R, Scherrer M, Daschner F. Energy consumption in hospitals. In: Sustainable Hospitals. 2009:85-98.

11. Singer M. Critical illness and flat batteries. Crit Care. 2017;21(Suppl 3):309.

12. Schuster M, Richter H, Pecher S, Koch S, Coburn M. Total intravenous anaesthesia vs. inhalational anaesthesia on postoperative outcomes. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82(1):62-67.

13. Miller D, Lewis SR, Pritchard MW, Schofield-Robinson OJ, Shelton CL, Alderson P, Smith AF. Intravenous versus inhalational maintenance of anaesthesia for postoperative cognitive outcomes in elderly people undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8(8):CD012317.

14. Baum JA. Low Flow Anaesthesia: The Theory and Practice of Low Flow, Minimal Flow and Closed System Anaesthesia. 2nd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2001.

15. Ryan SM, Nielsen CJ. Global warming potential of inhaled anesthetics: application to clinical use. Anesth Analg. 2010;111(1):92-98.

16. Langford VS, Gray JC, Mayhew CA, Morse M. Real-time measurements of anaesthetic waste-gas concentrations in the breathing zone. Anaesthesia. 2019;74(7):841-848.

17. Gadani H, Vyas A. Anesthetic gases and global warming: Potentials, prevention and future of anesthesia. Anesth Essays Res. 2011;5(1):5-10.

18. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Reprocessing and Reuse of Single-Use Devices: Regulatory Guidance. 2020.

19. Billett HH. Approach to the patient with bleeding and thrombosis. In: Cecil Textbook of Medicine. 23rd ed. 2008:1285-1291.

20. Bouallègue O, Chaari A, Bouziri A, et al. Laryngoscope blades: A potential source of cross infection. Can J Anaesth. 2011;58:1004-1009.

21. Duffy P, Cronly J, Molloy W, McGovern R. Survey of blood pressure cuff decontamination and survey of bacterial contamination. Ir Med J. 2010;103(2):44-46.

22. Popp W, Rasslan O, Unahalekhaka A, et al. What is the use? An international look at reuse of single-use medical devices. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2010;213(4):302-307.

23. Belkhir L, Elmeligi A. Carbon footprint of the global pharmaceutical industry and relative impact of its major players. J Clean Prod. 2019;214:185-194.

24. Larsson DGJ, Flach CF. Antibiotic resistance in the environment. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2022;20(5):257-269.

25. Vogler S, Schneider P. Assessing data sources for medicine price comparisons for the purpose of external price referencing in Europe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(1):102-109.

26. Demonchy E, Dufour JC, Gaudart J, et al. Impact of a computerized decision support system on compliance with guidelines on antibiotics prescribed for urinary tract infections in emergency departments: a multicentre prospective before-and-after controlled interventional study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69(10):2857-2863.

27. Jeswani HK, Azapagic A. Life cycle environmental impacts of inhalers. J Clean Prod. 2019;237:117733.

28. Stringer R, Ieromonachou P, Piotrowicz W, Dewberry E, Daniels J. Combining sustainability into supply chain management. In: Green Supply Chain Management. 2015.

29. Eckelman MJ, Sherman JD, MacNeill AJ. Life cycle environmental emissions and health damages from the Canadian healthcare system. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0194281.

30. MacNeill AJ, McGain F, Sherman JD. Planetary health care: A framework for sustainable health systems. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(2):e66-e68.

31. Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R, et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(3):1779-1786.

32. Mortimer F, Isherwood J, Wilkinson A, Vaux E. Sustainability in quality improvement: redefining value. Future Hosp J. 2018;5(2):88-93.

33. MacNeill AJ, Lillywhite R, Brown CJ. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. Lancet Planet Health. 2017;1(9):e381-e388.

34. Giurge L, Rogers T, Norcross W, Lee R, Norton MI. Nudges that improve COVID-19 prevention: Meta-analytical evidence. JAMA Health Forum. 2021;2(7):e211147.

35. Drew J, Christie SD, Rainham D, Rizkalla M. HealthcareCAN-CASCADES GHG Reduction Program: Methodology for reducing and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. Healthc Q. 2010;13 Spec No:62-68.

---

Word Count: 2,998 words 

Author Declaration: This review synthesizes current evidence on sustainable critical care practice. Clinicians should adapt recommendations to local contexts, regulatory frameworks, and institutional capabilities while maintaining patient safety as the paramount priority.