ArticleKorean circulation journal2026
Towards Green Cardiovascular Care: Carbon Footprint Analysis in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.