ABSTRACT
Thousands of oil and gas structures have been installed in the world's oceans over the past 70 years to meet the population's reliance on hydrocarbons. Over the last decade, there has been increased concern over how to handle decommissioning of this infrastructure when it reaches the end of its operational life. Complete or partial removal may or may not present the best option when considering potential impacts on the environment, society, technical feasibility, economy, and future asset liability. Re-purposing of offshore structures may also be a valid legal option under international maritime law where robust evidence exists to support this option. Given the complex nature of decommissioning offshore infrastructure, a global horizon scan was undertaken, eliciting input from an interdisciplinary cohort of 35 global experts to develop the top ten priority research needs to further inform decommissioning decisions and advance our understanding of their potential impacts. The highest research priorities included: (1) an assessment of impacts of contaminants and their acceptable environmental limits to reduce potential for ecological harm; (2) defining risk and acceptability thresholds in policy/governance; (3) characterising liability issues of ongoing costs and responsibility; and (4) quantification of impacts to ecosystem services. The remaining top ten priorities included: (5) quantifying ecological connectivity; (6) assessing marine life productivity; (7) determining feasibility of infrastructure re-use; (8) identification of stakeholder views and values; (9) quantification of greenhouse gas emissions; and (10) developing a transdisciplinary decommissioning decision-making process. Addressing these priorities will help inform policy development and governance frameworks to provide industry and stakeholders with a clearer path forward for offshore decommissioning. The principles and framework developed in this paper are equally applicable for informing responsible decommissioning of offshore renewable energy infrastructure, in particular wind turbines, a field that is accelerating rapidly.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to define the prevalence and prognostic impact of blood transfusions in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice. BACKGROUND: Although the presence of anemia is associated with adverse outcomes in patients undergoing PCI, the optimal use of blood products in patients undergoing PCI remains controversial. METHODS: A search of EMBASE and MEDLINE was conducted to identify PCI studies that evaluated blood transfusions and their association with major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and mortality. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion, and data were extracted from relevant studies. Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the risk of adverse outcomes with blood transfusions. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by considering the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: Nineteen studies that included 2,258,711 patients with more than 54,000 transfusion events were identified (prevalence of blood transfusion 2.3%). Crude mortality rate was 6,435 of 50,979 (12.6%, 8 studies) in patients who received a blood transfusion and 27,061 of 2,266,111 (1.2%, 8 studies) in the remaining patients. Crude MACE rates were 17.4% (8,439 of 48,518) in patients who had a blood transfusion and 3.1% (68,062 of 2,212,730) in the remaining cohort. Meta-analysis demonstrated that blood transfusion was independently associated with an increase in mortality (odds ratio: 3.02, 95% confidence interval: 2.16 to 4.21, I(2) = 91%) and MACE (odds ratio: 3.15, 95% confidence interval: 2.59 to 3.82, I(2) = 81%). Similar observations were recorded in studies that adjusted for baseline hematocrit, anemia, and bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Blood transfusion is independently associated with increased risk of mortality and MACE events. Clinicians should minimize the risk for periprocedural transfusion by using available bleeding-avoidance strategies and avoiding liberal transfusion practices.
