ArticleAnaesthesia2026
Cost-effectiveness of a transition from volatile anaesthesia to total intravenous anaesthesia to reduce carbon footprint: an economic modelling study.
Article in Anaesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe UK NHS is committed to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2040. Volatile anaesthetic agents are potent greenhouse gases and alternative intravenous methods exist. We aimed to predict the cost-effectiveness of a transition from volatile anaesthesia to total intravenous anaesthesia to reduce carbon emissions.
methodsA general anaesthetic for a 40-year-old, 78-kg patient was modelled. Two volatile anaesthetic agents (desflurane and sevoflurane) were compared with propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia. Total intravenous anaesthesia with and without processed electroencephalography was modelled. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the cost per kg carbon dioxide equivalent saved by transition to total intravenous anaesthesia, benchmarked against the UK emission trading scheme carbon permit price of £41.84 (US$54.90, €47.28) per tonne carbon dioxide equivalent.
resultsTotal intravenous anaesthesia was less carbon intensive than sevoflurane and desflurane (2.0 vs. 9.8 kg and 209.2 kg carbon dioxide equivalent, respectively). Total intravenous anaesthesia was more expensive than sevoflurane when processed electroencephalography was used (£13.03 (US$17.08, €14.72) vs. £9.76 (US$12.79, €11.03)) but cheaper when it was not (£5.31 (US$6.95, €6.00) vs. £9.76 (US$12.79, €11.03)). When processed electroencephalography was used, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of transitioning from sevoflurane to total intravenous anaesthesia was £416 (US$544, €470) per tonne carbon dioxide equivalent. Total intravenous anaesthesia (with and without processed electroencephalography) was cheaper than desflurane (£18.94 (US$24.77, €21.41)). DISCUSSION: Using our model parameters and the different carbon dioxide emissions and similar cost, transitioning from desflurane anaesthesia to total intravenous anaesthesia is cost-effective. Transitioning from sevoflurane anaesthesia to total intravenous anaesthesia without processed electroencephalography is likely to be cost-effective but is not recommended due to the increased risk of awareness. Transitioning from sevoflurane anaesthesia to total intravenous anaesthesia with processed electroencephalography is unlikely to be cost-effective.
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.