Green endoscopy, one step toward a sustainable future: Literature review

Abstract

Rapid climate change or climate crisis is one of the most serious emergencies of the 21st century, accounting for highly impactful and irreversible changes worldwide. Climate crisis can also affect the epidemiology and disease burden of gastrointestinal diseases because they have a connection with environmental factors and nutrition.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a highly intensive procedure with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Moreover, endoscopy is the third highest generator of waste in healthcare facilities with significant contributions to carbon footprint. The main sources of direct carbon emission in endoscopy are use of high-powered consumption devices (e.g. computers, anesthesia machines, wash machines for reprocessing, scope processors, and lighting) and waste production derived mainly from use of disposable devices. Indirect sources of emissions are those derived from heating and cooling of facilities, processing of histological samples, and transportation of patients and materials.

Consequently, sustainable endoscopy and climate change have been the focus of discussions between endoscopy providers and professional societies with the aim of taking action to reduce environmental impact. The term "green endoscopy" refers to the practice of gastroenterology that aims to raise awareness, assess, and reduce endoscopy´s environmental impact.

Nevertheless, while awareness has been growing, guidance about practical interventions to reduce the carbon footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy are lacking. This review aims to summarize current data regarding the impact of endoscopy on GHG emissions and possible strategies to mitigate this phenomenon. Further, we aim to promote the evolution of a more sustainable "green endoscopy".

Keywords

Quality and logistical aspects - Performance and complications - Quality management - Image and data processing, documentatiton

Publication History

Received: 15 September 2023

Accepted after revision: 30 January 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
15 July 2024

Article published online:
23 August 2024

• References

• 1 NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Monthly global climate report for September 2022. Accessed November 17, 2022 at: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202209
• 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 Management Res 2018; 36: 39-47 DOI: 10.1177/0734242X17739968. (PMID: 29132259)
• 3 Sun T, Ocko IB, Sturcken E. et al. Path to net zero is critical to climate outcome. Scientific Rep 2021; 11: 22173 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01639-y. (PMID: 34772989)
• 4 Casadevall A. Climate change brings the specter of new infectious diseases. J Clin Invest 2020; 130: 553-555 DOI: 10.1172/JCI135003. (PMID: 31904588)
• 5 Andrade L, O'Dwyer J, O'Neill E. et al. Surface water flooding, groundwater contamination, and enteric disease in developed countries: A scoping review of connections and consequences. Environment Pollution (Barking, Essex: 1987) 2018; 236: 540-549
• 6 Swinburn BA, Kraak VI, Allender S. et al. The Global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: The Lancet Commission report. Lancet (London, England) 2019; 393: 791-846
• 7 Wu JC. Psychological co-morbidity in functional gastrointestinal disorders: Epidemiology, mechanisms and management. J Neurogastroenterol Motility 2012; 18: 13-18 DOI: 10.5056/jnm.2012.18.1.13. (PMID: 22323984)
• 8 Accessed December 18, 2023 at: https://unfccc.int/cop27
• 9 Siau K, Hayee BH, Gayam S. Endoscopy's current carbon footprint. Tech Innovations Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 344-352
• 10 Gayam S. Environmental impact of endoscopy: "Scope" of the problem. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 1931-1932 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001005. (PMID: 33086225)
• 11 Lacroute J, Marcantoni J, Petitot S. et al. The carbon footprint of ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 918-926 DOI: 10.1055/a-2088-4062. (PMID: 37156511)
• 12 Henniger D, Windsheimer M, Beck H. et al. Assessment of the yearly carbon emission of a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. Gut 2023; 72: 1816-1818 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-329940. (PMID: 37364983)
• 13 Le NNT, Hernandez LV, Vakil N. et al. Environmental and health outcomes of single-use versus reusable duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 1002-1008 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.06.014. (PMID: 35718068)
• 14 Donnelly L. Green endoscopy: practical implementation. Frontline Gastroenterol 2022; 13: e7-e12 DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2022-102116. (PMID: 35812035)
• 15 Namburar S, von Renteln D, Damianos J. et al. Estimating the environmental impact of disposable endoscopic equipment and endoscopes. Gut 2022; 71: 1326-1331
• 16 Baddeley R, Aabakken L, Veitch A. et al. Green endoscopy: Counting the carbon cost of our practice. Gastroenterology 2022; 162: 1556-1560 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.01.057. (PMID: 35183550)
• 17 López-Muñoz P, Martín-Cabezuelo R, Pons-Beltrán V. et al. Carbon footprint determination of single-use endoscope. ESGE Days 2022. Endoscopy DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-174500.
• 18 Elli L, La Mura S, Rimondi A. et al. The carbon cost of inappropriate endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 99: 137-134.e3
• 19 López-Muñoz P, Martín-Cabezuelo R, Lorenzo-Zúñiga V. et al. Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact. Gut 2023; 72: 1692-1697 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-329544. (PMID: 37185655)
• 20 NHS England. NHS net Zero—Call for evidence. 2020 Accessed December 18, 2023 at: https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/survey/nhs-net- zero/
• 21 Perisetti A, Desai M, Bourke MJ. et al. Production and possible reduction of greenhouse gases produced during GI endoscopy activity: a systematic review of available literature. Gut 2023; 72: 493-500
• 22 World Resources Institute. Greenhouse gas protocol. Accessed December 17, 2023 at: https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-standard
• 23 Goldis A, Goldis R, Chirila TV. Biomaterials in gastroenterology: A vritical overview. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019; 55: 734 DOI: 10.3390/medicina55110734. (PMID: 31726779)
• 24 Volenec K, Pohl I. The challenges: Stent materials from the perspective of the manufacturer. Int J Gastrointest Interv 2016; 5: 98-104
• 25 Larsen S, Russell RV, Ockert LK. et al. Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 2020; 25: 100451 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100451. (PMID: 32954234)
• 26 Balan GG, Sfarti CV, Chiriac SA. et al. Duodenoscope-associated infections: a review. Europ J Clin Microb Infect Dis 2019; 38: 2205-2213 DOI: 10.1007/s10096-019-03671-3. (PMID: 31482418)
• 27 Repici A, Khalaf K, Troncone E. et al. International Delphi Consensus Study on disposable single-use endoscopy: A path to clinical adoption. Digest Liver Dis 2024; 56: 322-329 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2023.07.026. (PMID: 37558571)
• 28 Agrawal D, Tang Z. Sustainability of single-use endoscopes. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 353-362
• 29 Lenti MV, Girardi D, Muzzi A. et al. Prevalence and risk factors for multi-drug resistant bacterial infections in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Digest Liver Dis 2023; 55: 1447-1449 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2023.06.018. (PMID: 37407320)
• 30 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.e211
• 31 Maida M, Sferrazza S, Savarino E. et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Gastroenterology Divisions in Italy: A national survey. Digest Liver Dis 2020; 52: 808-815 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2020.05.017. (PMID: 32425733)
• 32 Rizan C, Reed M, Bhutta MF. Environmental impact of personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England in the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. J Royal Soc Med 2021; 114: 250-263 DOI: 10.1177/01410768211001583. (PMID: 33726611)
• 33 Rizan C, Bhutta MF, Reed M. et al. The carbon footprint of waste streams in a UK hospital. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021; 286: 125446 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125446.
• 34 Vassallo R, Venezia L, Zullo A. et al. Safety and protection in endoscopic services during phase II of COVID-19 pandemic: a national survey. Europ J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 33: 974-976
• 35 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 DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqab021. (PMID: 33822876)
• 36 Bortoluzzi F, Sorge A, Vassallo R. et al. Sustainability in gastroenterology and digestive endoscopy: Position Paper from the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Digestive Endoscopists (AIGO). Digest Liver Dis 2022; 54: 1623-1629
• 37 Frazzoni L, La Marca M, Radaelli F. et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the appropriateness of colonoscopy increases the probability of relevant findings and cancer while reducing unnecessary exams. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2021; 53: 22-32
• 38 Bjørsum-Meyer T, Toth E, Koulaouzidis A. Carbon footprint from superfluous colonoscopies: potentialities to scale down the impact. Gut 2022; DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326587. (PMID: 34996826)
• 39 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
• 40 Early DS, Ben-Menachem T, Decker GA. et al. Appropriate use of GI endoscopy. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2012; 75: 1127-1131 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.011. (PMID: 22624807)
• 41 de Franchis R, Bosch J, Garcia-Tsao G. et al. Baveno VII - Renewing consensus in portal hypertension. J Hepatol 2022; 76: 959-974 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.12.022. (PMID: 35120736)
• 42 Pallio S, Melita G, Shahini E. et al. Diagnosis and management of esophagogastric varices. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 2023; 13: 1031
• 43 Maida M, Macaluso FS, Ianiro G. et al. Screening of colorectal cancer: present and future. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2017; 17: 1131-1146 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2017.1392243. (PMID: 29022408)
• 44 Plevris N, Lees CW. Disease monitoring in inflammatory bowel disease: evolving principles and possibilities. Gastroenterology 2022; 162: 1456-1475.e1451 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.01.024. (PMID: 35101422)
• 45 Pouw RE, Barret M, Biermann K. et al. Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 1: Upper gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary tracts. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 1174-1188 DOI: 10.1055/a-1611-5091. (PMID: 34535035)
• 46 Pouw RE, Bisschops R, Gecse KB. et al. Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 2: Lower gastrointestinal tract. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 1261-1273 DOI: 10.1055/a-1671-6336. (PMID: 34715702)
• 47 Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Rex DK. A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 865-869.e861–863 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.018. (PMID: 20621680)
• 48 Maida M, Marasco G, Facciorusso A. et al. Effectiveness and application of artificial intelligence for endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: the future is now. Expert Review Anticancer Ther 2023; 23: 719-729 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2215436. (PMID: 37194308)
• 49 Maida M, Ventimiglia M, Facciorusso A. et al. Effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC versus other bowel preparations for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of nine randomized clinical trials. Digest Liver Dis 2023; 55: 1010-1018 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2022.11.010. (PMID: 36470722)
• 50 Shahini E, Sinagra E, Vitello A. et al. Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature. World J Gastroenterol 2023; 29: 1685-1707
• 51 Maida M, Sferrazza S, Maida C. et al. Management of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy in endoscopy: A review of literature. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 12: 172-192 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v12.i6.172. (PMID: 32843928)
• 52 Wilcox CM, Waites K, Brookings ES. Use of sterile compared with tap water in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. AmJ Infect Control 1996; 24: 407-410
• 53 Chartier Y. WHO-Safe management of wastes from health-care activities – 2nd ed. 2014
• 54 Purohit A, Smith J, Hibble A. Does telemedicine reduce the carbon footprint of healthcare? A systematic review. Future Healthc J 2021; 8: e85-e91 DOI: 10.7861/fhj.2020-0080. (PMID: 33791483)
• 55 Costantino A, Bortoluzzi F, Giuffrè M. et al. Correct use of telemedicine in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: Recommendations from the Italian association of hospital gastroenterologists and endoscopists (AIGO). Digest Liver Dis 2021; 53: 1221-1227
• 56 Sinagra E, Busacca A, Guida L. et al. Telemedicine Is an Effective Tool to Monitor Disease Activity in IBD Patients in the COVID-19 Era: A Single Centre Experience Based on Objective Data. Gastroenterology Insights 2022; 13: 117-126 DOI: 10.3390/gastroent13010013.
• 57 Fantini MC, Biancone L, Dragoni G. et al. Telemedicine and remote screening for covid-19 in inflammatory bowel disease patients: results from the SoCOVID-19 survey. Inflam Bowel Dis 2020; 26: e134-e136
• 58 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
• 59 Sebastian S, Dhar A, Baddeley R. et al. Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy. Gut 2023; 72: 12-26 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328460. (PMID: 36229172)