BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopy is performed with air insufflation and is usually associated with abdominal pain. It is well recognized that carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed more quickly into the body than air; however, to date, few studies have investigated the use of CO2 insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy (CEC). Thus, this study evaluated the efficacy of CO2 insufflation compared with air insufflation in CEC. METHODS:From March 2014 to April 2016, a total of 215 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive CO2 insufflation (CO2 group, n = 108) or air insufflation (air group, n = 107). Abdominal pain after CEC was recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The amount of sedatives administered, use of analgesics, polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), abdominal circumference, and adverse events were also analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups. Abdominal pain on the VAS in the CO2 group and air group 1 hour after CEC was, respectively, 13.8 and 20.1 (P = .010), 3 hours after CEC was 8.3 and 12.5 (P = .056), 6 hours after CEC was 3.5 and 5.3 (P = .246), and 1 day after CEC was 1.8 and 3.4 (P = .192). The dose of sedative administered, analgesic usage, PDR, ADR, and adverse events were not statistically different between the groups. However, the increase in abdominal circumference was significantly higher in the air group than in the CO2 group. CONCLUSIONS:CO2 insufflation was superior to air insufflation with regard to the pain score on the VAS in the hour after CEC. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001491.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopy is performed with air insufflation and is usually associated with abdominal pain. It is well recognized that carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed more quickly into the body than air; however, to date, few studies have investigated the use of CO2 insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy (CEC). Thus, this study evaluated the efficacy of CO2 insufflation compared with air insufflation in CEC. METHODS: From March 2014 to April 2016, a total of 215 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive CO2 insufflation (CO2 group, n = 108) or air insufflation (air group, n = 107). Abdominal pain after CEC was recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The amount of sedatives administered, use of analgesics, polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), abdominal circumference, and adverse events were also analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups. Abdominal pain on the VAS in the CO2 group and air group 1 hour after CEC was, respectively, 13.8 and 20.1 (P = .010), 3 hours after CEC was 8.3 and 12.5 (P = .056), 6 hours after CEC was 3.5 and 5.3 (P = .246), and 1 day after CEC was 1.8 and 3.4 (P = .192). The dose of sedative administered, analgesic usage, PDR, ADR, and adverse events were not statistically different between the groups. However, the increase in abdominal circumference was significantly higher in the air group than in the CO2 group. CONCLUSIONS:CO2 insufflation was superior to air insufflation with regard to the pain score on the VAS in the hour after CEC. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001491.).
Authors: John Alexander Lata Guacho; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; Igor Braga Ribeiro; Bruna Furia Buzetti Hourneaux de Moura; Megui Marilia Mansilla Gallegos; Thomas McCarty; Ricardo Katsuya Toma; Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura Journal: Clin Endosc Date: 2021-03-25
Authors: Su Young Kim; Jun-Won Chung; Jung Ho Kim; Yoon Jae Kim; Kyoung Oh Kim; Kwang An Kwon; Dong Kyun Park Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 4.623