Ripple Effect: Safety, Cost, and Environmental Concerns of Using Sterile Water in Endoscopy

Deepak Agrawal , Seth Crockett , Sonali Palchaudhuri , Lyndon Hernandez , Kevin Skole , Rahul Shimpi , Jim Collins , Daniel Von Renteln , Heiko Pohl
{"title":"Ripple Effect: Safety, Cost, and Environmental Concerns of Using Sterile Water in Endoscopy","authors":"Deepak Agrawal ,&nbsp;Seth Crockett ,&nbsp;Sonali Palchaudhuri ,&nbsp;Lyndon Hernandez ,&nbsp;Kevin Skole ,&nbsp;Rahul Shimpi ,&nbsp;Jim Collins ,&nbsp;Daniel Von Renteln ,&nbsp;Heiko Pohl","doi":"10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The gastroenterology societies are committed to reducing the carbon footprint of endoscopies and hence, re-examining waste-generating practices. One such practice is the recommendation to use sterile water during endoscopy for endoscopy lens cleaning and colon irrigation. We critically reviewed all published medical literature and guidelines on the safety of the type of water used in endoscopy. We calculated the cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of a 1-L sterile water bottle and compared it to published studies on bottled drinking water. Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions. Referenced studies utilize care protocols that are not practiced. There is also considerable cross-referencing of review articles and guidelines. Two clinical studies directly comparing tap and sterile water in gastrointestinal endoscopy found tap water to be a safe and practical cost-saving alternative to sterile water. The calculated carbon footprint of bottled sterile water is 575 g CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent. No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. It contributes to health-care waste and climate change and is costly. We recommend tap water be used to fill sterile water bottles until evidence shows the need for alternative practice. It would be prudent to re-evaluate guidelines and write new ones that consider harm to the environment and society in the provision of care to patients, especially when the intervention may be more harmful than the risk it aims to address.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73130,"journal":{"name":"Gastro hep advances","volume":"4 5","pages":"Article 100625"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastro hep advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772572325000123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The gastroenterology societies are committed to reducing the carbon footprint of endoscopies and hence, re-examining waste-generating practices. One such practice is the recommendation to use sterile water during endoscopy for endoscopy lens cleaning and colon irrigation. We critically reviewed all published medical literature and guidelines on the safety of the type of water used in endoscopy. We calculated the cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of a 1-L sterile water bottle and compared it to published studies on bottled drinking water. Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions. Referenced studies utilize care protocols that are not practiced. There is also considerable cross-referencing of review articles and guidelines. Two clinical studies directly comparing tap and sterile water in gastrointestinal endoscopy found tap water to be a safe and practical cost-saving alternative to sterile water. The calculated carbon footprint of bottled sterile water is 575 g CO2 equivalent. No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. It contributes to health-care waste and climate change and is costly. We recommend tap water be used to fill sterile water bottles until evidence shows the need for alternative practice. It would be prudent to re-evaluate guidelines and write new ones that consider harm to the environment and society in the provision of care to patients, especially when the intervention may be more harmful than the risk it aims to address.
连锁反应:在内窥镜检查中使用无菌水的安全性、成本和环境问题
胃肠病学会致力于减少内窥镜检查的碳足迹,因此重新审查了产生废物的做法。其中一种做法是建议在内窥镜检查过程中使用无菌水清洗内窥镜镜头和冲洗结肠。我们严格审查了所有已发表的关于内窥镜检查用水类型安全性的医学文献和指南。我们计算了 1 升无菌水瓶从摇篮到坟墓的碳足迹,并将其与已发表的有关瓶装饮用水的研究进行了比较。建议在内窥镜检查期间使用无菌水的指南所依据的证据有限,而且大多是专家意见。参考研究采用的护理方案并未付诸实践。综述文章和指南之间也有大量的交叉引用。两项直接比较消化道内窥镜检查中自来水和无菌水的临床研究发现,自来水比无菌水更安全、更实用、更节省成本。经计算,瓶装无菌水的碳足迹为 575 克二氧化碳当量。没有直接证据支持在胃肠道内窥镜检查过程中推荐和广泛使用无菌水。无菌水会造成医疗废物和气候变化,而且成本高昂。我们建议使用自来水来灌装无菌水瓶,直到有证据表明需要采用其他做法。谨慎的做法是重新评估指南并编写新的指南,在为患者提供医疗服务时考虑到对环境和社会的危害,尤其是当干预措施可能比其要解决的风险危害更大时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gastro hep advances
Gastro hep advances Gastroenterology
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
64 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信