PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2024; 12(08): E968-E980
DOI: 10.1055/a-2303-8621
Review

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

Marcello Maida 
1   Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Enna 'Kore', Enna, Italy
2   Gastroenterology Unit, Umberto I Hospital, Enna, Italy
,
Alessandro Vitello
3   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, S. Elia Hospital, ASP di Caltanissetta, Caltanissetta, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN220706)
,
Endrit Shahini
4   Gastroenterology Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology-IRCCS "Saverio de Bellis", Castellana Grotte, Bari, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN18529)
,
Roberto Vassallo
5   Gastroenterology Unit, Buccheri La Ferla Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Palermo, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN213309)
,
Emanuele Sinagra
6   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Istituto San Raffaele G Giglio di Cefalù, Cefalu, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN97860)
,
Socrate Pallio
7   Digestive Diseases Endoscopy Unit, Policlinico G. Martino Hospital, University of Messina, Messina, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN18980)
,
Giuseppinella Melita
7   Digestive Diseases Endoscopy Unit, Policlinico G. Martino Hospital, University of Messina, Messina, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN18980)
,
Daryl Ramai
8   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN12348)
,
Marco Spadaccini
9   Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN9268)
10   Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN437807)
,
Cesare Hassan 
9   Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN9268)
10   Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN437807)
,
Antonio Facciorusso 
11   Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy (Ringgold ID: RIN18972)
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Erratum zu diesem Artikel:

Correction: Green endoscopy, one step toward a sustainable future: Literature reviewEndosc Int Open 2024; 12(08): C7-C7
DOI: 10.1055/a-2414-3571

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


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 15. September 2023

Angenommen nach Revision: 30. Januar 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
15. Juli 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. August 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Monthly global climate report for September 2022. Zugriff am 17. November 2022 unter: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202209
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Zugriff am 18. Dezember 2023 unter: https://unfccc.int/cop27
  • 9 Siau K, Hayee BH, Gayam S. Endoscopy's current carbon footprint. Tech Innovations Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 344-352
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Donnelly L. Green endoscopy: practical implementation. Frontline Gastroenterol 2022; 13: e7-e12 DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2022-102116. (PMID: 35812035)
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Elli L, La Mura S, Rimondi A. et al. The carbon cost of inappropriate endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 99: 137-134.e3
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 20 NHS England. NHS net Zero—Call for evidence. 2020 Zugriff am 18. Dezember 2023 unter: https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/survey/nhs-net- zero/
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 22 World Resources Institute. Greenhouse gas protocol. Zugriff am 17. Dezember 2023 unter: https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-standard
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Goldis A, Goldis R, Chirila TV. Biomaterials in gastroenterology: A vritical overview. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019; 55: 734 DOI: 10.3390/medicina55110734. (PMID: 31726779)
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Volenec K, Pohl I. The challenges: Stent materials from the perspective of the manufacturer. Int J Gastrointest Interv 2016; 5: 98-104
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Agrawal D, Tang Z. Sustainability of single-use endoscopes. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 23: 353-362
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Pallio S, Melita G, Shahini E. et al. Diagnosis and management of esophagogastric varices. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 2023; 13: 1031
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Chartier Y. WHO-Safe management of wastes from health-care activities – 2nd ed. 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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)
    Google Scholar