Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32794038›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical systems2020

Water Pollution and Environmental Concerns in Anesthesiology.

Marc Kostrubiak, Christine M Vatovec, Lesley-Ann Dupigny-Giroux, Donna M Rizzo, William C Paganelli, Mitchell H Tsai

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. CuRSC advances · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marc KostrubiakRobert Larner College of Medicine at The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Christine M VatovecRubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Lesley-Ann Dupigny-GirouxDepartment of Geography, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Donna M RizzoSchool of Engineering, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
William C PaganelliDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, 111 Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT, USA.
Mitchell H TsaiDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, 111 Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT, USA. mitchell.tsai@uvmhealth.org.
University of Vermont · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medications administered by anesthesia health care providers and subsequently excreted into the water supply system have the potential to affect ecological systems. Presently, there is a lack of literature examining which medications or metabolites enter the waste stream. Further, their potential environmental impacts are often unknown or simply not considered as an externality of medical practice. Recent work examining the practice of anesthesiology has explored the solid waste stream, and the global warming potential of anesthetic gases, however the potential aquatic impacts remain unexplored. To address the potential for waterborne pollution and environmental toxicity, we extracted the total intravenous medications (by mass) administered by anesthesiologists in 2017 at The University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC), a mid-size regional Level 1 trauma center in Burlington, VT. The most commonly administered medications were: cefazolin, propofol, acetaminophen, sugammadex and lidocaine. To estimate the amount of each medication that entered the wastewater stream, we used published metabolism profiles to adjust from the total amount administered to the amount excreted unchanged or as prominent metabolites. For each medication we reviewed existing literature concerning their environmental fate and impacts in water. Due to the constraints of current knowledge, it is not possible to determine the exact fate and impacts of these drugs. Some medications, like propofol, have the potential for significant bioaccumulation and persistence. Others, such as lidocaine and acetaminophen, have short half-lives in the environment but their constant delivery and excretion result in pseudo-persistence. The current literature mostly assesses acute exposure at doses higher than could be expected in the environment on select species. While significant toxicities across a variety of species have been found repeatedly, chronic low dose exposures require further study for all the medications discussed. Finally, multi-drug impacts are likely to be more impactful than single-drug toxicities. While we cannot state definitive impacts, the pharmaceuticals most used in anesthesiology have a clear toxic potential and future studies should more closely examine the relative contribution of anesthesia to pharmaceutical pollution, as well as points of intervention for minimizing these unintended consequences of healthcare delivery.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyPropofolHumansWater PollutionPropofolAnesthesiaEnvironmentExternalitiesPharmaceuticalsPollutionWater

Identifiers

PMID32794038
OpenAlexW3049603912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.