ReviewCurrent opinion in anaesthesiology2026
Protecting clinician autonomy and patient safety within the climate debate: the case for desflurane in modern anaesthesia.
Review in Current opinion in anaesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to the comments by Mizutani et al. on "Environmental and clinical rationale for the use of desflurane: a review of the literature".Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
- The 0.00015 degree problem: learning from the environmental debates around desflurane.Anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Recovery Kinetics and Postoperative Outcomes of Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Sevoflurane in Ambulatory Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Studies.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe anaesthesia community should play a more active role in shaping sustainable healthcare practices. Current environmental measures, such as the European Commission's impending restriction on desflurane (an inhaled anaesthetic) from January 2026, risk unintended consequences for patient care and clinical autonomy. RECENT
findingsWhile desflurane's high global warming potential (GWP) has been the central justification, GWP is an oversimplified metric that fails to reflect the transient atmospheric behaviour of short-lived gases like desflurane compared with long-lived gases like carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Recent climate modelling shows desflurane's impact on global temperature is negligible, reversible, and overstated by CO₂-equivalence comparisons. Clinically, desflurane offers significant advantages, including rapid, predictable emergence, particularly beneficial for high-risk patient groups, such as elderly, obese, paediatric, neurosurgical, and cardiac patients. SUMMARY: Blanket restrictions undermine anaesthetists' ability to tailor care, and limit training, resilience, and preparedness in the face of drug shortages. We urge policymakers to support anaesthetic diversity and protect desflurane's availability where use is clinically justified. Sustainability efforts should focus on high-impact areas like energy use, equipment manufacturing, and waste, rather than eliminating valuable pharmacological options. Patient safety and evidence-based practice must remain central as we strive toward a more responsible, nuanced environmental approach in anaesthesia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.