The goal of this observational study is to learn about the carbon footprint produced from diagnostic upper GI endoscopy in patients with dyspepsia and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy in patients with non-variceal upper GI bleeding. The main question it aims to answer is:
• How much carbon footprint is generated from upper GI endoscopy Participants are already receiving diagnostic and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy as part of their regular medical care for dyspepsia and non-variceal upper GI bleeding, respectively. The carbon footprint generated from this treatment process is examined.
Patients with dyspepsia or non-variceal upper GI bleeding
Age 20-80 years
Body mass index of 30 or less;
Platelet < 50,000
INR > 2.5
Pregnancy
History of allergy to IV sedative medication
Dyspepsia patients and non-variceal upper GI bleeding receiving upper GI endoscopy at King Chulalongkorn Memorial hospital and Sawanpracharak hospital, Thailand
Cohort
Prospective
Not listed
To quantify the carbon footprint of diagnostic endoscopy for dyspepsia and therapeutic endoscopy for peptic ulcer bleeding
The primary outcome is to calculate the carbon footprint produced from diagnostic upper GI endoscopy in dyspepsia patients and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy in peptic ulcer patients, focusing on the carbon footprint produced since the patient enter the endoscopy room until they leave the endoscopy room
To compare carbon emissions between diagnostic and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy
To compare emissions across different hemostatic techniques (clips, argon plasma coagulation, bipolar probe), with or without epinephrine.
To evaluate procedural success rates of bleeding stoppage and adverse events (e.g., perforation, post-procedural sepsis) by different techniques
To evaluate procedural success rates of bleeding stoppage and adverse events (e.g., perforation, post-procedural sepsis) by different techniques (follow up to 30 days after treatment was given to see rate of recurrent bleeding)
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
