Environmental footprint of a colonoscopy procedure: Life cycle assessment

Abstract

Background and study aims

Gastroenterology is a specialty that has evolved rapidly over time, especially in terms of advancements in endoscopic procedures. However, these advancements also present challenges, given the substantial resource demands associated with endoscopy procedures. Numerous actions could be taken to develop a resilient healthcare system that consumes as few resources as possible, but recommendations are needed to prioritize which processes could be improved. We aimed to evaluate the environmental footprint of a colonoscopy procedure, and to identify the main contributing impact process categories.

Methods

A single-center observational study was conducted at a Dutch university hospital. No clinical patient data were collected, but the colonoscopy procedure was studied. Data were collected during 13 colonoscopies. Life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to calculate environmental impact.

Results

Damage to human health from one colonoscopy was 11.3·10^–5 disability-adjusted life-years, equivalent to 1 hour. A single colonoscopy resulted in emission of 56.4 kg of CO₂-equivalent (CO₂eq), equal to driving a car for 255 km or 55 days of emissions for an average European household. Transportation of patients and staff (76.5%) and disposables (13.5%) were the greatest contributors to damage to human health.

Conclusions

Among the 13 colonoscopies studied, the environmental impact was mainly attributable to transportation of patients and staff, and disposables. Therefore, raising awareness about the impact of transportation by car, and reducing resource consumption, particularly of disposable products, should be prioritized. Implementing alternatives to colonoscopy, such as intestinal ultrasound, could reduce the environmental footprint of the healthcare system.

Keywords

Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Inflammatory bowel disease - Polyps / adenomas / ...

^* Shared last authorship.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 06. Februar 2025

Angenommen nach Revision: 27. März 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
31. März 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. Mai 2025

• References

• 1 Lenzen M, Malik A, Li M. et al. The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment. Lancet Planet Health 2020; 4: e271-e279
• 2 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
• 3 Rodriguez 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
• 4 Henniger D, Windsheimer M, Beck H. et al. Assessment of the yearly carbon emission of a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. Gut 2023; 72: 1816-1818
• 5 Duijvestein M, Sidhu R, Zimmermann K. et al. The United European Gastroenterology green paper-climate change and gastroenterology. United European Gastroenterol J 2024; 12: 1292-1305
• 6 McGain F, Burnham JP, Lau R. et al. The carbon footprint of treating patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Resusc 2018; 20: 304-312
• 7 Siegert M-W, Lehmann A, Emara Y. et al. Harmonized rules for future LCAs on pharmaceutical products and processes. In J Life Cycle Assessment 2018; 24: 1040-1057
• 8 Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R. et al. Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 2015; 49: 1779-1786
• 9 Duffy J, Slutzman JE, Thiel CL. et al. Sustainable purchasing practices: A comparison of single-use and reusable pulse oximeters in the Emergency Department. West J Emerg Med 2023; 24: 1034-1042
• 10 Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF. et al. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 2016; 22: 138-147
• 11 Devleesschauwer B, Havelaar AH, Maertens de Noordhout C. et al. Calculating disability-adjusted life years to quantify burden of disease. Int J Public Health 2014; 59: 565-569
• 12 Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC. et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2018. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 254-272 e11
• 13 Lopez-Munoz P, Martin-Cabezuelo R, Lorenzo-Zuniga V. et al. Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact. Gut 2023; 72: 1692-1697
• 14 Lacroute J, Marcantoni J, Petitot S. et al. The carbon footprint of ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 918-926
• 15 Pioche M, Pohl H, Cunha Neves JA. et al. Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes. Gut 2024; 73: 1816-1822
• 16 Henniger D, Windsheimer M, Beck H. et al. Assessment of the yearly carbon emission of a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. Gut 2023; 72: 1816-1818
• 17 Nordberg LB, Pohl H, Haavardsholm EA. et al. Carbon-footprint analyses in RCTs - Toward sustainable clinical practice. N Engl J Med 2024; 390: 2234-2236
• 18 de Jong D, Volkers A, de Ridder E. et al. Steps toward a greener endoscopy unit. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 2723-6 e2
• 19 Chavannes M, Dolinger MT, Cohen-Mekelburg S. et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Role of Intestinal Ultrasound in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Commentary. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 22: 1790-5 e1
• 20 McAlister S, McGain F, Petersen M. et al. The carbon footprint of hospital diagnostic imaging in Australia. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2022; 24: 100459