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: CO2 production comparison

• Financial Impact:

• Contrast-enhanced CT scans cost between 900% and 2,400% more than X-rays and 200% to 400% more than ultrasounds [3].

• Native CT scans are 700% to 1,500% more expensive than X-rays and 150% to 300% more expensive than ultrasounds [3].

  

  Fig 3: Cost comparison

• Health Risks:
• Repeated exposure to CT imaging increases cumulative radiation dose, which has been associated with a slight yet significant rise in cancer risk over time [2].

• Native CT exposes patients to approximately 7 mSv per scan, while contrast-enhanced CT averages around 15 mSv per scan. In contrast, X-rays expose patients to 0.1–0.3 mSv per scan, and ultrasounds involve no radiation exposure [2].

  

  Fig 4: Radiation dose comparison

• Contrast-enhanced CT carries additional risks, such as nephrotoxicity in patients with kidney impairment and allergic reactions to contrast agents [2].

Implementing policies that encourage the judicious use of imaging can lead to substantial benefits, including reduced COâ‚‚ emissions, cost savings for healthcare systems, and decreased patient exposure to unnecessary radiation. Raising awareness among medical professionals about the consequences of over-reliance on CT scans is crucial in promoting sustainable healthcare practices.