Carbon Footprint in Upper GI EndoscopyNCT07261228
The Difference in Carbon Footprint Between Diagnostic Upper GI Endoscopy in Dyspeptic Patients Versus Therapeutic Upper GI Bleeding
An observational study of Carbon Footprint in Upper GI Endoscopy and Dyspepsia, run by King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital at 2 sites in Thailand.
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Carbon Footprint in Upper GI Endoscopy, Dyspepsia, Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
- How many people
- 75 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesThailand
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2025to 31 Dec 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Dyspepsia patients and non-variceal upper GI bleeding receiving upper GI endoscopy at King Chulalongkorn Memorial hospital and Sawanpracharak hospital, Thailand
Who may be able to join
- Patients with dyspepsia or non-variceal upper GI bleeding
- Age 20-80 years
- Body mass index of 30 or less;
- Receiving one of the following procedure during upper GI endoscopy:
- For diagnostic endoscopy: Rapid urease test for H. pylori infection For therapeutic endoscopy: stop bleeding with either Argon plasma coagulation or Bipolar hemostasis probe or Hemostasis clip
Who cannot join
- Platelet < 50,000
- INR > 2.5
- Pregnancy
- History of allergy to IV sedative medication
- Peptic ulcer grade IIc and III according to Forrest classification
- Patient receiving inhalation anesthesia
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Thailand2 sites, 2 recruiting
- Recruiting
King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital
Bangkok, 10330
Ponthakorn Pichayanont, Doctor of Medicine, 66831237704, ponthakorn.pi@gmail.com
- Recruiting
Sawanpracharak Hospital
Nakhon Sawan, 60000
Natee Faknak, Doctor of Medicine, 66849961424, f.natee30@gmail.com
About this study
Official title: THE DIFFERENCE IN CARBON FOOTPRINT BETWEEN DIAGNOSTIC UPPER GI ENDOSCOPY IN DYSPEPTIC PATIENTS VERSUS THERAPEUTIC UPPER GI BLEEDING
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.
Read the detailed description
Healthcare systems are a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Gastrointestinal endoscopy accounts for the third largest share of GHG emissions among hospital services, after anesthesiology and intensive care units. Upper GI endoscopy is commonly indicated for diagnostic purposes, such as dyspepsia, or for therapeutic purposes, such as upper GI bleeding. Carbon footprint is defined as the total amount of GHG emissions over the life cycle of a service or product. Prior studies have primarily estimated the overall footprint of endoscopy, often including indirect sources such as patient transportation, rather than direct emissions. To date, no studies have compared the carbon footprint between diagnostic and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy.
This study aims to provide a detailed assessment of the direct carbon footprint generated by endoscopic procedures. We hypothesize that therapeutic endoscopy for upper GI bleeding has higher carbon emissions due to longer procedure time, greater energy consumption, and increased use of disposable equipment compared to diagnostic endoscopy for dyspepsia.
This study is an observational study looking at patients with dyspepsia and peptic ulcer bleeding coming to receive diagnostic and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy, respectively. Patients coming to receive an upper GI endoscopy at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital and Sawanpracharak Hospital, Thailand, who are under the inclusion criteria, are asked to get enrolled in the study and have their data recorded. Without any intervention, they will be treated with the standard treatment and investigation for their conditions.
The timeframe for patient enrollment is two months. The carbon footprint produced was calculated from medical equipment and medication used, energy consumption, and equipment reprocessing. The carbon footprint produced was calculated from when the patient entered the endoscopy center until they left the endoscopy center.
Patients with peptic ulcer bleeding will either get treatment with a bipolar hemostasis probe, a hemostasis clip, or argon plasma coagulation. Epinephrine injection can also be used as an adjunctive treatment.
The success rate and complications after treatment in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding will be recorded by follow-up at 72 hours and 30 days after the procedure.
The data recorded in this study are age, height, weight, underlying diseases, history of alcohol consumption, history of smoking, duration of endoscopic procedure, types and locations of peptic ulcer (if any) according to Forrest classification, and the success rate of bleeding stoppage. These data will be used to calculate the carbon footprint produced from upper GI endoscopy.
Categorical data will be processed using the chi-square test. Continuous data will be calculated using mean and standard deviation, and compared using the unpaired t-test and ANOVA test.
- Conditions
- Carbon Footprint in Upper GI Endoscopy, Dyspepsia, Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
- Keywords
- Carbon footprint, Upper GI endoscopy, EGD, Dyspepsia, Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
- Medical subject headings
- Dyspepsia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic upper GI endoscopy | Dyspepsia patient receiving diagnostic upper GI endoscopy | |
| Therapeutic upper GI endoscopy | Non-variceal upper GI bleeding patient receiving therapeutic upper GI endoscopy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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
Measured: From enrollment to the time that patients leave the endoscopy room
Secondary outcomes (3)
To compare carbon emissions between diagnostic and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy
Measured: From enrollment to the time that patients leave the endoscopy room
To compare emissions across different hemostatic techniques (clips, argon plasma coagulation, bipolar probe), with or without epinephrine.
Measured: From enrollment to the time that patients leave the endoscopy room
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)
Measured: From enrollment to 30 days after treatment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Dec 2025
- Study start1 Jun 2025
- Primary completion31 Aug 2025
- Study completion31 Dec 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Carbon Footprint in Upper GI EndoscopyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 75 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Rapat Pittayanon, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07261228
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- RP027
- Status last verified
- Jun 2025
- First submitted
- 21 Nov 2025
- Last updated
- 3 Dec 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Dec 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- THE DIFFERENCE IN CARBON FOOTPRINT BETWEEN DIAGNOSTIC UPPER GI ENDOSCOPY IN DYSPEPTIC PATIENTS VERSUS THERAPEUTIC UPPER GI BLEEDING
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07261228
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- RP027
- Conditions
- Carbon Footprint in Upper GI Endoscopy, Dyspepsia, Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
- Keywords
- Carbon footprint, Upper GI endoscopy, EGD, Dyspepsia, Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 75 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- King Chulalongkorn Memorial HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Aug 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
Healthcare systems are a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Gastrointestinal endoscopy accounts for the third largest share of GHG emissions among hospital services, after anesthesiology and intensive care units. Upper GI endoscopy is commonly indicated for diagnostic purposes, such as dyspepsia, or for therapeutic purposes, such as upper GI bleeding. Carbon footprint is defined as the total amount of GHG emissions over the life cycle of a service or product. Prior studies have primarily estimated the overall footprint of endoscopy, often including indirect sources such as patient transportation, rather than direct emissions. To date, no studies have compared the carbon footprint between diagnostic and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy.
This study aims to provide a detailed assessment of the direct carbon footprint generated by endoscopic procedures. We hypothesize that therapeutic endoscopy for upper GI bleeding has higher carbon emissions due to longer procedure time, greater energy consumption, and increased use of disposable equipment compared to diagnostic endoscopy for dyspepsia.
This study is an observational study looking at patients with dyspepsia and peptic ulcer bleeding coming to receive diagnostic and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy, respectively. Patients coming to receive an upper GI endoscopy at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital and Sawanpracharak Hospital, Thailand, who are under the inclusion criteria, are asked to get enrolled in the study and have their data recorded. Without any intervention, they will be treated with the standard treatment and investigation for their conditions.
The timeframe for patient enrollment is two months. The carbon footprint produced was calculated from medical equipment and medication used, energy consumption, and equipment reprocessing. The carbon footprint produced was calculated from when the patient entered the endoscopy center until they left the endoscopy center.
Patients with peptic ulcer bleeding will either get treatment with a bipolar hemostasis probe, a hemostasis clip, or argon plasma coagulation. Epinephrine injection can also be used as an adjunctive treatment.
The success rate and complications after treatment in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding will be recorded by follow-up at 72 hours and 30 days after the procedure.
The data recorded in this study are age, height, weight, underlying diseases, history of alcohol consumption, history of smoking, duration of endoscopic procedure, types and locations of peptic ulcer (if any) according to Forrest classification, and the success rate of bleeding stoppage. These data will be used to calculate the carbon footprint produced from upper GI endoscopy.
Categorical data will be processed using the chi-square test. Continuous data will be calculated using mean and standard deviation, and compared using the unpaired t-test and ANOVA test.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic upper GI endoscopy | – | –Dyspepsia patient receiving diagnostic upper GI endoscopy |
| Therapeutic upper GI endoscopy | – | –Non-variceal upper GI bleeding patient receiving therapeutic upper GI endoscopy |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Dyspepsia patients and non-variceal upper GI bleeding receiving upper GI endoscopy at King Chulalongkorn Memorial hospital and Sawanpracharak hospital, Thailand
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients with dyspepsia or non-variceal upper GI bleeding
- Age 20-80 years
- Body mass index of 30 or less;
- Receiving one of the following procedure during upper GI endoscopy:
- For diagnostic endoscopy: Rapid urease test for H. pylori infection For therapeutic endoscopy: stop bleeding with either Argon plasma coagulation or Bipolar hemostasis probe or Hemostasis clip
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Platelet < 50,000
- INR > 2.5
- Pregnancy
- History of allergy to IV sedative medication
- Peptic ulcer grade IIc and III according to Forrest classification
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
To quantify the carbon footprint of diagnostic endoscopy for dyspepsia and therapeutic endoscopy for peptic ulcer bleeding
Time frame: From enrollment to the time that patients leave the endoscopy room
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
3 secondary outcomes
To compare carbon emissions between diagnostic and therapeutic upper GI endoscopy
Time frame: From enrollment to the time that patients leave the endoscopy room
To compare emissions across different hemostatic techniques (clips, argon plasma coagulation, bipolar probe), with or without epinephrine.
Time frame: From enrollment to the time that patients leave the endoscopy room
To evaluate procedural success rates of bleeding stoppage and adverse events (e.g., perforation, post-procedural sepsis) by different techniques
Time frame: From enrollment to 30 days after treatment
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Dec 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Carbon Footprint in Upper GI Endoscopy and Dyspepsia, run by King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital at 2 sites in Thailand.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Dec 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Thailand. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Ponthakorn Pichayanont, Doctor of Medicine (66831237704, ponthakorn.pi@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
To quantify the carbon footprint of diagnostic endoscopy for dyspepsia and therapeutic endoscopy for peptic ulcer bleeding (time frame: From enrollment to the time that patients leave the endoscopy room). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 Dec 2025.