Greener Choices in Biliary Imaging: A Prospective Carbon Footprint Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Intermediate-Likelihood Choledocholithiasis.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Hardik Rughwani, Nitin Jagtap, David M de Jong, Abhishek Tyagi, Tharani Putta, Ashirwad Pasumarthy, Abul Khair Khan, Rakesh Kalapala, Mohan Ramchandani, Sundeep Lakhtakia, D Nageshwar Reddy
{"title":"Greener Choices in Biliary Imaging: A Prospective Carbon Footprint Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Intermediate-Likelihood Choledocholithiasis.","authors":"Hardik Rughwani, Nitin Jagtap, David M de Jong, Abhishek Tyagi, Tharani Putta, Ashirwad Pasumarthy, Abul Khair Khan, Rakesh Kalapala, Mohan Ramchandani, Sundeep Lakhtakia, D Nageshwar Reddy","doi":"10.14309/ctg.0000000000001098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Health care accounts for nearly 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and medical imaging is among its most energy-intensive activities. For intermediate-likelihood common bile duct stones, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are both guideline-endorsed with comparable diagnostic accuracy, yet their environmental costs have never been directly compared.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective study, we measured the per-procedure carbon footprint of EUS and MRCP using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and India's grid emission factor. We recorded EUS procedure times individually; MRCP emissions were derived from a validated power model that captures the continuous cryocooler load maintaining magnet superconductivity around the clock, with shared infrastructure allocated by real case volume. We performed sensitivity analyses across scanner utilization, energy-allocation method, scan duration, and grid carbon intensity. The study followed the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Endoscopic Sustainability PrimAry Reporting Essentials reporting standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EUS generated 4.53 kg CO 2 e per procedure and MRCP 18.90 kg CO 2 e per procedure, making MRCP 4.2 times more carbon-intensive. The continuously running cryocooler was the single largest fixed contributor to MRCP emissions (23.4% in standby alone), a 24/7 load absent in EUS. Choosing EUS for 108 patients saved 1,552 kg CO 2 e, equivalent to the annual carbon uptake of 74 mature trees. EUS remained the lower-carbon option across sensitivity analyses, although the advantage narrowed and could reverse on low-carbon grids.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>For bile duct stone evaluation, EUS offers the same diagnostic answer at substantially lower carbon cost where grid electricity is carbon-intensive, adding environmental impact to accuracy, safety, and cost in the decision.</p>","PeriodicalId":10278,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"e01098"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13694088/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14309/ctg.0000000000001098","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Health care accounts for nearly 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and medical imaging is among its most energy-intensive activities. For intermediate-likelihood common bile duct stones, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are both guideline-endorsed with comparable diagnostic accuracy, yet their environmental costs have never been directly compared.

Methods: In this prospective study, we measured the per-procedure carbon footprint of EUS and MRCP using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and India's grid emission factor. We recorded EUS procedure times individually; MRCP emissions were derived from a validated power model that captures the continuous cryocooler load maintaining magnet superconductivity around the clock, with shared infrastructure allocated by real case volume. We performed sensitivity analyses across scanner utilization, energy-allocation method, scan duration, and grid carbon intensity. The study followed the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Endoscopic Sustainability PrimAry Reporting Essentials reporting standard.

Results: EUS generated 4.53 kg CO 2 e per procedure and MRCP 18.90 kg CO 2 e per procedure, making MRCP 4.2 times more carbon-intensive. The continuously running cryocooler was the single largest fixed contributor to MRCP emissions (23.4% in standby alone), a 24/7 load absent in EUS. Choosing EUS for 108 patients saved 1,552 kg CO 2 e, equivalent to the annual carbon uptake of 74 mature trees. EUS remained the lower-carbon option across sensitivity analyses, although the advantage narrowed and could reverse on low-carbon grids.

Discussion: For bile duct stone evaluation, EUS offers the same diagnostic answer at substantially lower carbon cost where grid electricity is carbon-intensive, adding environmental impact to accuracy, safety, and cost in the decision.

胆道成像的绿色选择:EUS与MRCP对中等可能性胆总管结石的前瞻性碳足迹比较。
导论:医疗保健占全球温室气体(GHG)排放量的近5%,而医疗成像是其最耗能的活动之一。对于中等可能性胆总管(CBD)结石,内镜超声(EUS)和磁共振胆管造影(MRCP)都是指南认可的诊断准确性相当的方法,但它们的环境成本从未被直接比较过。方法:在这项前瞻性研究中,我们使用温室气体议定书和印度电网排放系数测量了EUS和MRCP的每程序碳足迹。分别记录EUS手术次数;MRCP排放量来源于一个经过验证的功率模型,该模型可以捕获连续制冷机负载,并根据实际情况分配共享基础设施。我们对扫描仪利用率、能量分配方法、扫描持续时间和网格碳强度进行了敏感性分析。该研究遵循ESGE E-SPARE报告标准。结果:EUS每次手术产生4.53 kg二氧化碳当量,MRCP每次手术产生18.90 kg二氧化碳当量,MRCP的碳强度是MRCP的4.2倍。连续运行的制冷机是MRCP排放的最大固定贡献者(仅待机时为23.4%),而在EUS中不存在24/7负荷。108例患者选择EUS节省了1552 kg CO2e,相当于74棵成熟树木一年的碳吸收量。在敏感性分析中,EUS仍然是低碳选择,尽管优势缩小,并且可能在低碳电网中逆转。讨论:对于胆管结石的评估,EUS提供了相同的诊断答案,但碳成本大大降低,因为电网是碳密集型的,在决策时增加了对准确性、安全性和成本的环境影响。
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
Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology
Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology (CTG), published on behalf of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), is a peer-reviewed open access online journal dedicated to innovative clinical work in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. CTG hopes to fulfill an unmet need for clinicians and scientists by welcoming novel cohort studies, early-phase clinical trials, qualitative and quantitative epidemiologic research, hypothesis-generating research, studies of novel mechanisms and methodologies including public health interventions, and integration of approaches across organs and disciplines. CTG also welcomes hypothesis-generating small studies, methods papers, and translational research with clear applications to human physiology or disease. Colon and small bowel Endoscopy and novel diagnostics Esophagus Functional GI disorders Immunology of the GI tract Microbiology of the GI tract Inflammatory bowel disease Pancreas and biliary tract Liver Pathology Pediatrics Preventative medicine Nutrition/obesity Stomach.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书