Comparing Carbon Footprint of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Upper GI Endoscopy in Adults with Dyspepsia or Upper GI Bleeding

What this Trial Is About

This observational study investigates the carbon footprint produced by upper gastrointestinal GI endoscopy procedures in patients with dyspepsia and non-variceal upper GI bleeding. The study aims to compare the direct greenhouse gas emissions generated by diagnostic endoscopy in dyspeptic patients versus therapeutic endoscopy used to treat upper GI bleeding. Researchers hypothesize that therapeutic procedures involve higher carbon emissions due to longer procedure times, more energy use, and increased disposable equipment compared to diagnostic procedures. Participants include those undergoing diagnostic upper GI endoscopy for dyspepsia and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy for non-variceal bleeding. Therapeutic treatments may involve bipolar hemostasis probes, hemostasis clips, argon plasma coagulation, or epinephrine injections as adjunctive therapy. The study records data from the start of the endoscopy until patients leave the endoscopy center and compares carbon emissions across different hemostatic techniques. Participants will have their age, height, weight, medical history, procedure duration, and ulcer characteristics recorded. Follow-up assessments occur at 72 hours and 30 days post-procedure to monitor treatment success and complications. The main outcome measures include the total carbon footprint from the procedure and comparisons of emissions between diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Safety and efficacy outcomes such as bleeding stoppage and adverse events will also be evaluated during the follow-up period.

The Difference in Carbon Footprint Between Diagnostic Upper GI Endoscopy in Dyspeptic Patients Versus Therapeutic Upper GI Bleeding