The carbon footprint of ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy

Abstract

Background Endoscopy is considered the third highest generator of waste within healthcare. This is of public importance as approximately 18 million endoscopy procedures are performed yearly in the USA and 2 million in France. However, a precise measure of the carbon footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is lacking.

Methods This retrospective study for 2021 was conducted in an ambulatory GIE center in France where 8524 procedures were performed on 6070 patients. The annual carbon footprint of GIE was calculated using “Bilan Carbone” of the French Environment and Energy Management Agency. This multi-criteria method accounts for direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy consumption (gas and electricity), medical gases, medical and non-medical equipment, consumables, freight, travel, and waste.

Results GHG emissions in 2021 were estimated to be 241.4 tonnes CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e) at the center, giving a carbon footprint for one GIE procedure of 28.4 kg CO₂e. The main GHG emission, 45 % of total emissions, was from travel by patients and center staff to and from the center. Other emission sources, in rank order, were medical and non-medical equipment (32 %), energy consumption (12 %), consumables (7 %), waste (3 %), freight (0.4 %), and medical gases (0.005 %).

Conclusions This is the first multi-criteria analysis assessing the carbon footprint of GIE. It highlights that travel, medical equipment, and energy are major sources of impact, with waste being a minor contributor. This study provides an opportunity to raise awareness among gastroenterologists of the carbon footprint of GIE procedures.

• References

• 1 Romanello M, McGushin A, Di Napoli C. et al. The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future. Lancet 2021; 398: 1619-1662
• 2 Dzau VJ, Levine R, Barrett G. et al. Decarbonizing the U.S. health sector – a call to action. N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 2117-2119
• 3 Leddin D, Omary MB, Veitch A. et al. Uniting the global gastroenterology community to meet the challenge of climate change and non-recyclable waste. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 1354-1360
• 4 Lenzen M, Malik A, Li M. et al. The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment. Lancet Planet Health 2020; 4: e271-279
• 5 Siau K, Hayee B, Gayam S. Endoscopy’s current carbon footprint. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 344-352
• 6 The Shift Project. Decarbonizing health for sustainable care: 2023 edition of the Shift Project report. Available at (Accessed 05/10/2023): https://theshiftproject.org/article/decarboner-sante-rapport-2023/
• 7 Vaccari M, Tudor T, Perteghella A. Costs associated with the management of waste from healthcare facilities: an analysis at national and site level. Waste Manag Res 2018; 36: 39-47
• 8 Bernardini D, Bulois P, Barthet M. et al. Résultats 2017 de l’enquête annuelle de la Société française d’endoscopie digestive « Une semaine de coloscopie en France ». Acta Endoscopica 2017; 47: 242-251
• 9 ADEME Carbon Base. Available at (Accessed 04/14/2023): https://base-empreinte.ademe.fr/donnees/jeu-donnees
• 10 NHS England Carbon Emissions May 2008. Available at (Accessed 04/14/2023): https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/2378/sdc-2008-nhs-carbon-footprinting-1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
• 11 Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent database. Available at (Accessed 04/14/2023): https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/
• 12 AGRIBALYSE. Available at (Accessed 04/14/2023): https://agribalyse.ademe.fr/
• 13 ADEME. Guide sectorial 2013. Available at (Accessed 04/14/2023): https://base-carbone.ademe.fr/docutheque/Guides%20Sectoriels%20MAJ%20V5/Guides%20sectoriels/Guide%20sectoriel%20sante.pdf
• 14 Gayam S. Environmental impact of endoscopy: “scope” of the problem. Official journal of the American College of Gastroenterology ACG 2020; 115: 1931-1932
• 15 Tennison I, Roschnik S, Ashby B. et al. Health care’s response to climate change: a carbon footprint assessment of the NHS in England. Lancet Planet Health 2021; 5: e84-92
• 16 Williams JA, Kao JY, Omary MB. How can individuals and the GI community reduce climate change?. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 14-17
• 17 Dobrusin A, Hawa F, Gladshteyn M. et al. Gastroenterologists and patients report high satisfaction rates with telehealth services during the novel coronavirus 2019 pandemic. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 2393-2397
• 18 Haddock R, de Latour R, Siau K. et al. Climate change and gastroenterology: planetary primum non nocere and how industry must help. Am J Gastroenterol 2022; 117: 394-400
• 19 Namburar S, von Renteln D, Damianos J. et al. Estimating the environmental impact of disposable endoscopic equipment and endoscopes. Gut 2022; 71: 1326-1331
• 20 Le NNT, Hernandez L, Vakil N. et al. Environmental and health outcomes of single-use versus reusable duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 1002-1008
• 21 Hafiani EM, Cassier P, Aho S. et al. Guidelines for clothing in the operating theatre, 2021. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2022; 41: 101084
• 22 Overcash M. A comparison of reusable and disposable perioperative textiles: sustainability state-of-the-art 2012. Anesth Analg 2012; 114: 1055-1066
• 23 RTE, France’s Transmission System Operator. Electrical report. Available at (Accessed 06/08/2022): https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2020-06/bilan-electrique-2019_1_0.pdf
• 24 Gordon IO, Sherman JD, Leapman M. et al. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of gastrointestinal biopsies in a surgical pathology laboratory. Am J Clin Pathol 2021; 156: 540-549
• 25 Nielsen HJ, Christensen IJ, Andersen B. et al. Serological biomarkers in triage of FIT-positive subjects?. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017; 52: 742-744
• 26 Mertz-Petersen M, Piper TB, Kleif J. et al. Triage for selection to colonoscopy?. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018; 44: 1539-1541
• 27 Baddeley R, de Santiago ER, Maurice J. et al. Sustainability in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 7: 9-12
• 28 Bjørsum-Meyer T, Toth E, Koulaouzidis A. Carbon footprint from superfluous colonoscopies: potentialities to scale down the impact. Gut 2022; 1125: 25-36
• 29 de Jong JJ, Lantinga MA, Drenth JP. Prevention of overuse: a view on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25: 178-189
• 30 Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC. et al. Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 463-485
• 31 Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 687-700
• 32 Rodríguez-de-Santiago E, Frazzoni L, Fuccio L. et al. Digestive findings that do not require endoscopic surveillance – reducing the burden of care: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 491-497
• 33 Rodríguez de Santiago E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Pohl H. et al. Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 797-826