Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
To assess the environmental impact of the non-invasive Magnetic Resonance image-guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) treatment of uterine fibroids, we aimed to perform a full Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). However, as a full LCA was not feasible at this time, we evaluated the CO2 (carbon dioxide) emission from the MRI scanner, MR-HIFU device, and the medication used, and analyzed solid waste produced during treatment.
Methods
Our functional unit was one uterine fibroid MR-HIFU treatment. The moment the patient entered the day care-unit until she left, defined our boundaries of investigation. We retrospectively collected data from 25 treatments to assess the CO2 emission based on the energy used by the MRI scanner and MR-HIFU device and the amount and type of medication administered. Solid waste was prospectively collected from five treatments.
Results
During an MR-HIFU treatment, the MRI scanner and MR-HIFU device produced 33.2 ± 8.7 kg of CO2 emission and medication administered 0.13 ± 0.04 kg. A uterine fibroid MR-HIFU treatment produced 1.2 kg (range 1.1–1.4) of solid waste.
Conclusions
Environmental impact should ideally be analyzed for all (new) medical treatments. By assessing part of the CO2 emission and solid waste produced, we have taken the first steps towards analyzing the total environmental impact of the MR-HIFU treatment of uterine fibroids. These data can contribute to future studies comparing the results of MR-HIFU LCAs with LCAs of other uterine fibroid therapies.
Critical relevance statement
In addition to (cost-) effectiveness, the environmental impact of new treatments should be assessed. We took the first steps towards analyzing the total environmental impact of uterine fibroid MR-HIFU.
Key points
• Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) should be performed for all (new) medical treatments.
• We took the first steps towards analyzing the environmental impact of uterine fibroid MR-HIFU.
• Energy used by the MRI scanner and MR-HIFU device corresponded to 33.2 ± 8.7 kg of CO2 emission.
Graphical Abstract
Funder
Isala Hospital
Medical Specialist Company Isala
Focused Ultrasound Foundation
Profound Medical
Society for Female Physicians
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference33 articles.
1. Richie C (2021) Environmental sustainability and the carbon emissions of pharmaceuticals. J Med Ethics 48:334–337
2. de Bruin J, Houwert T, Merkus K (2019) Een stuur voor de transitie naar duurzame gezondheidszorg. Gupta Strategists. https://gupta-strategists.nl/storage/files/1920_Studie_Duurzame_Gezondheidszorg_DIGITAL_DEF.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2023.
3. McGain F, Burnham Jason P, Lau R, Aye L, Kollef MH, McAlister S (2018) The carbon footprint of treating patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Resusc. 20:304–312
4. McGain F, Muret J, Lawson C, Sherman JD (2020) Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care. Br J Anaesth 125:680–692
5. McGinnis S, Johnson-Privitera C, Nunziato JD, Wohlford S (2021) Environmental life cycle assessment in medical practice: a user’s guide. Obstet Gynecol Surv 76:417–428