Open Versus Closed Suctioning in Invasively Ventilated Critically Ill Patients for Sustainability of ICU Care: A Life-Cycle Assessment Comparison

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Hunfeld N,
   2. Diehl JC,
   3. Timmermann M,
   4. van Exter P,
   5. Bouwens J,
   6. Browne-Wilkinson S,
   7. et al

   . Circular material flow in the intensive care unit—environmental effects and identification of hotspots. Intensive Care Med 2023;49(1):65–74.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Fahy JV,
   2. Dickey BF

   . Airway mucus function and dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2010;363(23):2233–2247.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Stilma W,
   2. van der Hoeven SM,
   3. Scholte Op Reimer WJM,
   4. Schultz MJ,
   5. Rose L,
   6. Paulus F

   . Airway care interventions for invasively ventilated critically ill adults-A Dutch national survey. J Clin Med 2021;10(15).
4. 4.↵
   1. Branson RD,
   2. Gomaa D,
   3. Rodriquez D Jr.

   . Management of the artificial airway. Respir Care 2014;59(6):974–989; discussion 989-990.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Jongerden IP,
   2. Rovers MM,
   3. Grypdonck MH,
   4. Bonten MJ

   . Open and closed endotracheal suction systems in mechanically ventilated intensive care patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2007;35(1):260–270.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Dexter AM,
   2. Scott JB

   . Airway management and ventilator-associated events. Respir Care 2019;64(8):986–993.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Blakeman TC,
   2. Scott JB,
   3. Yoder MA,
   4. Capellari E,
   5. Strickland SL

   . AARC clinical practice guidelines: artificial airway suctioning. Respir Care 2022;67(2):258–271.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   ISO-14040 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html.
9. 9.↵
   1. McGain F,
   2. Burnham JP,
   3. Lau R,
   4. Aye L,
   5. Kollef MH,
   6. McAlister S

   . The carbon footprint of treating patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Resusc 2018;20(4):304–312.

   OpenUrlPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Huijbregts MAJ,
    2. Steinmann ZJN,
    3. Elshout PMF,
    4. Stam G,
    5. Verones F,
    6. Vieira M,
    7. et al

    . ReCiPe 2016: a harmonized life-cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and end-point level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2017;22(2):138–147.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
11. 11.↵
    1. McGain F,
    2. Muret J,
    3. Lawson C,
    4. Sherman JD

    . Environmental sustainability in anesthesia and critical care. Br J Anaesth 2020;125(5):680–692.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Ramírez-Torres CA,
    2. Rivera-Sanz F,
    3. Sufrate-Sorzano T,
    4. Pedraz-Marcos A,
    5. Santolalla-Arnedo I

    . Closed endotracheal suction systems for COVID-19: rapid review. Interact J Med Res 2023;12:e42549.

    OpenUrl
13. 13.↵
    1. Jung F,
    2. Chou S-SP,
    3. Yang S-H,
    4. Lin J-C,
    5. Jow G-M

    . Optimizing effects on airway pressure and minute volume during closed endotracheal suctioning: a simulated lung model. Simulation 2021;97(7):439–449.

    OpenUrl
14. 14.↵
    1. Van de Leur JP,
    2. Zwaveling JH,
    3. Loef BG,
    4. Van der Schans CP

    . Patient recollection of airway suctioning in the ICU: routine versus a minimally invasive procedure. Intensive Care Med 2003;29(3):433–436.

    OpenUrlPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Morseletto P

    . Targets for a circular economy. Resour Conserv Recycl 2020;153:104553.

    OpenUrl