Nachhaltigkeit im OP ­ korrelieren Sterilität, Sicherheit und Service auch mit einer ressourcenschonenden Verwendung von Medizinprodukten?

In times of an unprecedented energy crisis, sustainability is becoming increasingly important. This development does not stop at medicine and especially at the operating room, where a considerable amount of greenhouse gases is produced. Due to this development, the question arises whether sterility, safety and service can be reconciled with a resource-saving use of medical devices. One goal here must be to replace disposables, which offer a high degree of sterility, with safely reprocessable reusables. Due to rising energy costs as well as supply bottlenecks, reprocessing of products offers increasing independence for the hospital. Furthermore, the move towards renewable energy for reusable products is visibly improving the carbon footprint. The independence gained by clinics also offers greater safety for patients, as the risk of unavailable materials is reduced. In addition to the goal of increasing the use of reusable items, the recycling of disposable products will also play an increasing role. Life cycle assessments will increasingly guide the optimal choice of products in this regard. In summary, these options offer the possibility of implementing the increasing need for sustainability in the OR.

Attenuated early inflammatory response in solid organ recipients with COVID-19.

Immunosuppression leaves transplanted patients at particular risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The specific features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in immunosuppressed patients are largely unknown and therapeutic experience is lacking. Seven transplanted patients (two liver, three kidneys, one double lung, one heart) admitted to the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich because of COVID-19 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were included. The clinical course and the clinical findings were extracted from the medical record. The two liver transplant patients and the heart transplant patient had an uncomplicated course and were discharged after 14, 18, and 12 days, respectively. Two kidney transplant recipients were intubated within 48 hours. One kidney and the lung transplant recipients were required to intubate after 10 and 15 days, respectively. Immunosuppression was adapted in five patients, but continued in all patients. Compared to non-transplanted patients at the ICU (n = 19) the inflammatory response was attenuated in transplanted patients, which was proven by decreased IL-6 blood values. This analysis might provide evidence that continuous immunosuppression is safe and probably beneficial since there was no hyperinflammation evident. Although transplanted patients might be more susceptible to an infection with SARS-CoV-2, their clinical course seems to be similar to immunocompetent patients.