Interventional Imaging Systems in Radiology, Cardiology, and Urology: Energy Consumption, Carbon Emissions, and Electricity Costs.

BACKGROUND. The energy demand of interventional imaging systems has historically been estimated using manufacturer-provided specifications rather than directly measured. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to investigate the energy consumption of interventional imaging systems and estimate potential savings in the carbon emissions and electricity costs of such systems through hypothetical operational adjustments. METHODS. An interventional radiology suite, neurointerventional suite, radiology fluoroscopy unit, two cardiology laboratories, and two urology fluoroscopy units were equipped with power sensors. Power measurement logs were extracted for a single 4-week period for each radiology and cardiology system (all between June 1, 2022, and November 28, 2022) and for the 2-week period from July 31, 2023, to August 13, 2023, for each urology system. Power statuses, procedure time stamps, and fluoroscopy times were extracted from various sources. System activity was divided into off, idle (no patient in room), active (patient in room for procedure), and net-imaging (active fluoroscopic image acquisition) states. Projected annual energy consumption was calculated. Potential annual savings in carbon emissions and electricity costs through hypothetical operational adjustments were estimated using published values for Switzerland. RESULTS. Across the seven systems, the mean power draw was 0.3-1.1, 0.7-7.4, 0.9-7.6, and 1.9-12.5 kW in the off, idle, active, and net-imaging states, respectively. Across systems, the off state, in comparison with the idle state, showed a decrease in the mean power draw of 0.2-6.9 kW (relative decrease, 22.2-93.2%). The systems had a combined projected annual energy consumption of 115,684 kWh (range, 3646-26,576 kWh per system). The systems' combined projected energy consumption occurring outside the net-imaging state accounted for 93.3% (107,978/115,684 kWh) of projected total energy consumption (range, 89.2-99.4% per system). A hypothetical operational adjustment whereby all systems would be switched from the idle state to the off state overnight and on weekends (versus being operated in idle mode 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) would yield the following potential annual savings: for energy consumption, 144,640 kWh; for carbon emissions, 18.6 metric tons of CO2 equivalent; and for electricity costs, US$37,896. CONCLUSION. Interventional imaging systems are energy intensive, having high consumption outside of image acquisition periods. CLINICAL IMPACT. Strategic operational adjustments (e.g., powering down idle systems) can substantially decrease the carbon emissions and electricity costs of interventional imaging systems.

Assessment of the gender gap in urology industry payments: An Open Payments Program data analysis.

PURPOSE: The Open Payments Program (OPP), established in 2013 under the Sunshine Act, mandated medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers to submit records of financial incentives given to physicians for public availability. The study aims to characterize the gap in real general and real research payments between man and woman urologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample included all urologists in the United States who received at least one general or research payment in the OPP database from 2015 to 2021. Recipients were identified using the National Provider Identifier and National Downloadable File datasets. Payments were analyzed by geography, year, payment type, and years since graduation. Multivariable analysis on odds of being in above the median in terms of money received was done with gender as a covariate. This analysis was also completed for all academic urologists. RESULTS: There was a total of 15,980 urologists; 13.6% were woman, and 86.4% were man. Compared to man urologists, woman urologists were less likely to be in the top half of total payments received (odds ratio [OR] 0.62) when adjusted for other variables. When looking at academic urologists, 18.1% were woman and 81.9% were man. However, woman academic urologists were even less likely to be in the top 50% of payments received (OR 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to characterize the difference in industry payments between man and woman urologists. The results should be utilized to educate physicians and industry, in order to achieve equitable engagement and funding for woman urologists.