Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Between Single-Use and Reprocessed IPC Sleeves

Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2023 Dec 13:16:2715-2726. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S439982. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

Purpose: Healthcare has a large environmental footprint, not least due to the wide use of single-use supplies. Reprocessing of medical devices is a well-established, regulated process, and can reduce its environmental impact. This life cycle assessment (LCA) compares the environmental footprint of a single-use and a reprocessed version of otherwise identical intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) sleeves.

Materials and methods: The LCA was performed in accordance with the international standard ISO 14044 using the Environmental Footprint 3.0 (EF) method for the assessment. Data were obtained in cooperation with IPC sleeve manufacturers. Where no primary data were available, ecoinvent database records were used. The functional unit is five hospital treatments applying IPC. The robustness of the results was interrogated in sensitivity analyses of the energy mix, the ethylene oxide emissions during reprocessing, and the transport distances. The impact of waste reduction on hospital disposal costs was calculated.

Results: The environmental footprint of reprocessed IPC sleeves was found to be reduced in all categories compared to single-use devices, leading to a weighted normalized reduction of 43% across all categories. In a breakdown of the LCA results, reprocessed IPC sleeves were found to reduce the carbon footprint by 40%, with the treatment of five patients with single-use IPC sleeves creating 7 kg CO2eq, compared to 4.2 kg CO2eq from reprocessed sleeves. Waste disposal costs were also reduced by 90%.

Conclusion: Reprocessing of IPC sleeves provides an environmental and economic benefit in comparison to single-use devices.

Keywords: circular economy; environmental footprint; equipment reuse; recycling; resource efficiency; waste management.

Grants and funding

This study was supported by funding from Cardinal Health™. ECOFIDES Consulting GmbH, pulswerk GmbH, Coreva Scientific GmbH & Co. KG and Alex Veloz received consultancy fees from Cardinal Health for work related to this manuscript. Cardinal Health had no role in the design and conduct of the study; management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.