Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 12, 2026

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
Towards Green Cardiovascular Care: Carbon Footprint Analysis in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease
Young-Hae Go1, Seokhun Yang2, Doyeon Hwang2
1Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Insights
Healthcare carbon footprint analysis is crucial, especially in cardiovascular medicine. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) data can compare treatment strategies, showing fractional flow reserve (FFR) has a lower carbon footprint.
Area of Science:
- Environmental Science
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Public Health
Background:
- Climate change, driven by greenhouse gas emissions, poses significant threats to human health.
- The healthcare sector contributes substantially to global carbon emissions (4.4%), yet its carbon footprint is understudied.
- Cardiovascular diseases are a major health concern, and their treatments can be carbon-intensive.
Purpose of the Study:
- To highlight the importance of carbon footprint assessment in healthcare, particularly cardiovascular medicine.
- To demonstrate the utility of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data for comparing the carbon footprint of different medical interventions.
- To emphasize the need to consider emissions from the entire clinical course and follow-up, not just direct intervention emissions.
Main Methods:
- Utilized data routinely collected during RCT follow-up periods to estimate total emissions associated with treatment strategies.
- Compared the carbon footprint of fractional flow reserve (FFR) versus intravascular ultrasonography for intermediate coronary artery stenosis using RCT data.
- Employed a long-term simulation model (30 years) to project cumulative carbon emissions for different treatment strategies.
Main Results:
- The fractional flow reserve (FFR) group demonstrated a lower carbon footprint during the 2-year follow-up period compared to the intravascular ultrasonography group.
- Long-term simulation indicated that the FFR strategy maintained a lower cumulative carbon emission profile over 30 years.
- RCT data provides a feasible method for estimating and comparing the environmental impact of cardiovascular interventions.
Conclusions:
- Comparing the carbon footprint of treatment strategies using existing RCT data offers valuable insights for environmentally responsible healthcare decisions.
- Developing comprehensive carbon footprint databases for healthcare interventions is essential.
- Raising awareness among healthcare professionals about the environmental impact of medical practices is critical for sustainability.
Abstract:
Greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, which in turn threatens human health through various pathways, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and infectious disease. Despite the healthcare sector accounting for 4.4% of global carbon emissions, carbon footprint analysis within the field remains limited. This perspective addresses the importance of carbon footprint assessment in healthcare, particularly in cardiovascular medicine, and illustrates the use of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data for carbon footprint comparison. Unlike other sectors, healthcare carbon footprint analysis must consider not only the emissions generated directly by medical interventions but also those produced during the subsequent clinical course and follow-up. Data routinely collected during RCT follow-up periods can be used to estimate total emissions associated with different treatment strategies. In the cardiovascular field, where procedures themselves are carbon-intensive and where serious clinical events frequently occur during long-term follow-up, such analyses are particularly relevant. For instance, based on RCT data comparing fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravascular ultrasonography for intermediate coronary artery stenosis, we estimated that the FFR group had a lower carbon footprint during the 2-year follow-up period. Extending the analysis with a long-term simulation model over 30 years similarly revealed that the cumulative carbon emissions remained lower in the FFR group. Comparing the carbon footprint between treatment strategies using RCT data can provide meaningful insights to guide environmentally responsible healthcare decisions. Building more accurate carbon footprint databases specific to healthcare interventions and fostering greater awareness among healthcare professionals will be essential to advance this effort.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT
Coronary Artery Disease I: Introduction
Atherosclerosis III: Management
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care

