Carbon footprint of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation.

AIMS: Climate change represents the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. Health care system is itself a large contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In cardiology, atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation is an increasing activity using numerous non-reusable materials that could contribute to GHG emission. Determining a detailed carbon footprint analysis of an AF catheter ablation procedure allows the identification of the main polluting sources that give opportunities for reduction of environmental impact. To assess the carbon footprint of AF catheter ablation procedure. To determine priority actions to decrease pollution. METHODS AND RESULTS: An eco-audit method used to predict the GHG emission of an AF catheter ablation procedure was investigated. Two workstations were considered including surgery and anaesthesia. In the operating room, every waste produced by single-use medical devices, pharmaceutical drugs, and energy consumption during intervention were evaluated. All analyses were limited to the operating room. Thirty procedures were analysed over a period of 8 weeks: 18 pulmonary veins isolation RF ablations, 7 complex RF procedures including PVI, roof and mitral isthmus lines, ethanol infusion of the Marshall vein and cavo tricuspid isthmus line, and 5 pulmonary vein isolation with cryoballoon. The mean emission during AF catheter ablation procedures was 76.9 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e). The operating field accounted for 75.4% of the carbon footprint, while only 24.6% for the anaesthesia workstation. On one hand, material production and manufacturing were the most polluting phases of product life cycle which, respectively, represented 71.3% (54.8 kg of CO2-e) and 17.0% (13.1 kg of CO2-e) of total pollution. On the other hand, transport contributed in 10.6% (8.1 kg of CO2-e), while product use resulted in 1.1% (0.9 kg of CO2-e) of GHG production. Electrophysiology catheters were demonstrated to be the main contributors of environmental impact with 29.9 kg of CO2-e (i.e. 38.8%). Three dimensional mapping system and electrocardiogram patches were accounting for 6.8 kg of CO2-e (i.e. 8.8% of total). CONCLUSION: AF catheter ablation involves a mean of 76.9 kg of CO2-e. With an estimated 600 000 annual worldwide procedures, the environmental impact of AF catheter ablation activity is estimated equal to 125 tons of CO2 emission each day. It represents an equivalent of 700 000 km of car ride every day. Electrophysiology catheters and patches are the main contributors of the carbon footprint. The focus must be on reducing, reusing, and recycling these items to limit the impact of AF ablation on the environment. A road map of steps to implement in different time frames is proposed.

Current practices and expectations to reduce environmental impact of electrophysiology catheters: results from an EHRA/LIRYC European physician survey.

The healthcare sector accounts for nearly 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and is a significant contributor to complex waste. Reducing the environmental impact of technology-heavy medical fields such as cardiac electrophysiology (EP) is a priority. The aim of this survey was to investigate the practice and expectations in European centres on EP catheters environmental sustainability. A 24-item online questionnaire on EP catheters sustainability was disseminated by the EHRA Scientific Initiatives Committee in collaboration with the Lyric Institute. A total of 278 physicians from 42 centres were polled; 62% were motivated to reduce the environmental impact of EP procedures. It was reported that 50% of mapping catheters and 53% of ablation catheters are usually discarded to medical waste, and only 20% and 14% of mapping and ablation catheters re-used. Yet, re-use of catheters was the most commonly cited potential sustainability solution (60% and 57% of physicians for mapping and ablation catheters, respectively). The majority of 69% currently discarded packaging. Reduced (42%) and reusable (39%) packaging also featured prominently as potential sustainable solutions. Lack of engagement from host institutions was the most commonly cited barrier to sustainable practices (59%). Complexity of the process and challenges to behavioral change were other commonly cited barriers (48% and 47%, respectively). The most commonly cited solutions towards more sustainable practices were regulatory changes (31%), education (19%), and product after-use recommendations (19%). In conclusion, EP physicians demonstrate high motivation towards sustainable practices. However, significant engagement and behavioural change, at local institution, regulatory and industry level is required before sustainable practices can be embedded into routine care.