Prospective Comparison of the Carbon Footprint of EUS vs MRCP for Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis
For patients and families
In plain language
An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.
- What is being studied
- This is an observational study: the protocol does not assign a study treatment.
- Who it may be relevant to
- Registry conditions: Choledocholithiasis. Basic parameters: 18 years — 80 years · All.
- What needs checking
- Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
- Where it takes place
- India
- Next step
- Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →
Official title
Prospective Comparison of the Carbon Footprint of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) vs Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis
Overview
MRCP and EUS are diagnostically equivalent in detecting CBD stones among patients with intermediate risk, as shown in a landmark RCT. However, MRI-based imaging is power-intensive, requiring large infrastructure and long scan durations. EUS, a less energy-consuming and portable procedure, has the added advantage of enabling same-session ERCP, reducing the need for repeat procedures.
Detailed description
MRCP and EUS are diagnostically equivalent in detecting CBD stones among patients with intermediate risk, as shown in a landmark RCT. However, MRI-based imaging is power-intensive, requiring large infrastructure and long scan durations. EUS, a less energy-consuming and portable procedure, has the added advantage of enabling same-session ERCP, reducing the need for repeat procedures. Prior research confirms that diagnostic EUS generates significantly less CO₂e per procedure compared to radiologic imaging. This study aims to support sustainable diagnostic choices by quantifying their environmental footprint.
Primary outcome measures
- Total kg CO₂e per procedure for EUS vs MRCP. [Time frame: 12 months]
Secondary outcome measures (1)
- Emissions [Time frame: 12 months]
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
- Age ≥18 years
- Intermediate likelihood of CBD stone (per ESGE)
- Undergoing either MRCP or EUS for evaluation
Exclusion criteria
- High or low likelihood category (per ESGE)
- Undergoing both MRCP and EUS simultaneously
- Contraindications to either modality
Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.
Healthy volunteers: No
Study design
- Observational model
- Case-only
Study locations
India · 1 center
- AIG Hospitals — Hyderabad
Publications
- • McAlister S et al. Radiology. 2021. Imaging footprint
- • Lenzen M et al. Lancet Planet Health. 2020. Health care emissions
- • Rughwani H et al. Gut. 2025. Carbon footprint of GIE
- • Jagtap N et al. Gut. 2022. EUS versus MRCP RCT
Identifiers
NCT: NCT07283185 · EUS vs MRCP-CBD1