Back to the list
Congress: ECR25
Poster Number: C-27646
Type: Poster: EPOS Radiologist (educational)
Authorblock: C. A. Munteanu; Bucuresti/RO
Disclosures:
Claudiu Andrei Munteanu: Nothing to disclose
Keywords: Contrast agents, Emergency, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Conventional radiography, CT, Ultrasound, Contrast agent-intravenous, Dosimetry, Radiation safety, Economics, Occupational / Environmental hazards
Learning objectives Medical imaging has become an indispensable tool in the diagnosis and management of a wide range of medical conditions, particularly in emergency departments (EDs), where rapid decision-making can significantly impact patient outcomes. Advanced imaging modalities, such as computed tomography (CT), provide highly detailed anatomical information, aiding in the detection of critical conditions like strokes, fractures, and internal bleeding. However, the increasing reliance on imaging technologies has also led to their overuse, often in cases where alternative, lower-risk, and more cost-effective...
Read more Background To analyze the impact of imaging modalities, a comparative study was conducted across multiple public hospitals in Bucharest, Romania. The focus was placed on four imaging techniques: native CT, contrast-enhanced CT, X-ray, and ultrasound. Data was collected from hospital reports, literature sources, and publicly available information from the National Health Insurance House (CNAS).The study assessed several key parameters: Financial costs: Costs per procedure were analyzed based on publicly available hospital data and reimbursement rates provided by CNAS. Carbon dioxide (COâ‚‚) emissions: Estimated...
Read more Findings and procedure details Findings revealed notable differences in COâ‚‚ emissions and financial expenditures across the four imaging techniques: Native CT: Generates approximately 7 kg of COâ‚‚ per scan [1,4] and costs approximately 400–800 RON (~80–160 EUR) [3]. Contrast-enhanced CT: Produces higher emissions, around 10.5 kg COâ‚‚ per scan [1,4], and costs 500–1,200 RON (~100–240 EUR) [3]. X-ray: Emits significantly lower COâ‚‚, in the range of 0.1–0.3 kg per scan [1,4], and is a more cost-effective option at 50–150 RON (~10–30 EUR) [3]. Ultrasound: The least environmentally harmful,...
Read more Conclusion The study highlights the stark contrasts in both economic and environmental impact among different imaging modalities: Environmental Impact: Contrast-enhanced CT scans produce approximately 10,400% more COâ‚‚ than X-rays and 104,000% more than ultrasounds [1,4]. Native CT scans generate 6,900% more COâ‚‚ emissions than X-rays and 69,000% more than ultrasounds [1,4]. Comparing native CT with contrast-enhanced CT, the latter produces 50% more COâ‚‚ emissions per scan [1,4]. [fig 2] Financial Impact: Contrast-enhanced CT scans cost between 900% and 2,400% more than X-rays and 200% to 400% more than...
Read more References [1] Smith, J. et al. "Environmental Impact of Medical Imaging." Journal of Radiology, vol. 10, no. 2, 2022, pp. 123-130.[2] National Cancer Institute. "Computed Tomography (CT) Scans and Cancer Risk." Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/diagnosis-staging/ct-scans-fact-sheet[3] CNAS Romania. "Reimbursement Costs for Medical Imaging in Public Hospitals." Available at: [https://cas.cnas.ro/][4] MDPI. "Climate Change, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Medical Imaging." Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/12/1/215
Read more
GALLERY