BACKGROUND:Insufflation with carbon dioxide (CO(2)) in colonoscopy has not been widely adopted and, consequently, limited data are available on insufflated gas volume and blood pCO(2). The aim of this study was to compare CO(2) and air as an insufflation agent in patients undergoing colonoscopy without sedation in terms of insufflated gas volume, pCO(2), pain and examination time. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, control trial. Consecutive patients presenting for colonoscopy, excluding those with lung or malignant disease, were randomized into two groups: insufflation with air or with CO(2), respectively. Insufflated gas volume, pain, pCO(2) and examination time were assessed. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 120 patients (66 randomized to CO(2) group). No significant difference in insufflated gas volumes was found between the CO(2) and air groups. The mean pCO(2) measured before, during (the peak value) and 30 min after colonoscopy were 40, 43 and 40 mmHg, respectively, in both groups. The pain scores in the air group were significantly greater than those in the CO(2) group until 3 h after the examination. There was a significant faster cecal intubation time and a trend toward shorter examination time in the CO(2) group. CONCLUSIONS: The CO(2) gas volume used in our study (14.0 L) was much greater than that reported by others (8.3 L), but the pCO(2) values were still within the normal reference range, indicating the safety of CO(2) insufflation over a greater range of CO(2) gas volume. Among our patients, CO(2) insufflation was associated with relatively less pain and a shorter examination time. Based on our results, we recommend that CO(2) become the standard gas for insufflation in patients undergoing colonoscopy without sedation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Insufflation with carbon dioxide (CO(2)) in colonoscopy has not been widely adopted and, consequently, limited data are available on insufflated gas volume and blood pCO(2). The aim of this study was to compare CO(2) and air as an insufflation agent in patients undergoing colonoscopy without sedation in terms of insufflated gas volume, pCO(2), pain and examination time. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, control trial. Consecutive patients presenting for colonoscopy, excluding those with lung or malignant disease, were randomized into two groups: insufflation with air or with CO(2), respectively. Insufflated gas volume, pain, pCO(2) and examination time were assessed. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 120 patients (66 randomized to CO(2) group). No significant difference in insufflated gas volumes was found between the CO(2) and air groups. The mean pCO(2) measured before, during (the peak value) and 30 min after colonoscopy were 40, 43 and 40 mmHg, respectively, in both groups. The pain scores in the air group were significantly greater than those in the CO(2) group until 3 h after the examination. There was a significant faster cecal intubation time and a trend toward shorter examination time in the CO(2) group. CONCLUSIONS: The CO(2) gas volume used in our study (14.0 L) was much greater than that reported by others (8.3 L), but the pCO(2) values were still within the normal reference range, indicating the safety of CO(2) insufflation over a greater range of CO(2) gas volume. Among our patients, CO(2) insufflation was associated with relatively less pain and a shorter examination time. Based on our results, we recommend that CO(2) become the standard gas for insufflation in patients undergoing colonoscopy without sedation.
Authors: James C H Wong; Kevin K Yau; Hester Y S Cheung; Denis C T Wong; Cliff C Chung; Michael K W Li Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 1.872
Authors: Katica Sumanac; Ian Zealley; Bruce M Fox; John Rawlinson; Bruno Salena; John K Marshall; Giles W Stevenson; Richard H Hunt Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Michael Bretthauer; Geir S Hoff; Espen Thiis-Evensen; Gert Huppertz-Hauss; Eva Skovlund Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 9.427