Environmental damage affects many aspects of healthcare, from extreme weather events to evolving population disease. Singapore's healthcare sector has the world's second highest healthcare emissions per capita, hampering the nation's pledge to reduce emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. In this review, we provide an overview of the impact environmental damage has on healthcare, including facilities, supply chain and human health, and examine measures to address healthcare's impact on the environment. Utilising the 'R's of sustainability - rethinking, reducing/refusing, reusing/repurposing/reprocessing, repairing, recycling and research - we have summarised the opportunities and challenges across medical disciplines. Awareness and advocacy to adopt strategies at institutional and individual levels is needed to revolutionise our environmental footprint and improve healthcare sustainability. By leveraging evidence from ongoing trials and integrating sustainable practices, our healthcare system can remain resilient against environment-driven challenges and evolving healthcare demands while minimising further impacts of environmental destruction.
Humans ; Climate Change ; Delivery of Health Care ; Singapore ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; Sustainable Development ; Environment

Background: Virgin coconut oil (VCO) has anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties, making it a potential therapeutic candidate against COVID-19 infection. Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of VCO as adjunctive therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a randomized, open-label controlled trial involving laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted at the Philippine General Hospital. The study participants were randomized to the intervention group who received virgin coconut oil with local standard of care, or to the control group who received local standard of care alone. Results: We enrolled 39 participants into the VCO group and 38 participants into the control group. Significantly fewer participants in the VCO group had abnormal CRP levels at the end of treatment compared to control. (relative risk [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 0.95; p=0.02) No significant difference was found in the duration of hospital stay (mean 9.33 days for VCO vs. 10.29 days for control; p=0.45) and time to symptom resolution (mean 6.8 days for VCO, vs. 6.74 days for control; p=0.91). Although the proportion of patients who developed the secondary outcomes of mortality, need for ICU admission, need for invasive ventilation, and negative viral conversion was lower in the VCO group, results did not reach statistical significance. The VCO group had larger reduction in the inflammatory markers ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, TNF-alpha, IP-10 and IL-6, but results did not reach statistical significance. Adverse events were significantly higher in the VCO group (RR 4.87, 95% CI 1.14 to 20.79; p=0.03). Conclusion This clinical trial on hospitalized patients showed significant benefit in CRP levels of participants given VCO compared to control. There was no significant benefit in the use of VCO as adjunctive therapy in reducing duration of hospital stay. Larger studies are needed to conclusively demonstrate the effect of VCO on other clinical outcomes and inflammatory markers.
COVID-19 ; Clinical Trial

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Less invasive transcatheter tricuspid therapies are optimal alternative for surgery in high-risk individuals with severe symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation on medical therapy. Various techniques are available with Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair (TEER) having the greatest experience worldwide. When the coaptation gap becomes too large for TEER, caval valve implantation (CAVI) emerge as a better option. We described a series of 4 patients who underwent CAVI with the TricValve system and periprocedural computed tomography angiography imaging for the purpose of TricValve sizing. There were few procedural complications, with significant improvements in New York Heart Association functional class and right ventricular function post-procedure.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.