Shunsuke Kamba1, Masakuni Kobayashi1, Akio Koizumi1, Shingo Ono1, Yuko Hara1, Nana Shimamoto1, Hiroaki Matsui1, Hiroto Furuhashi1, Tomohiko Richard Ohya1, Naoto Tamai1, Masako Nishikawa2, Kiyokazu Nakajima3, Kazuki Sumiyama4. 1. Department of Endoscopy, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-Shinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan. 2. Clinical Research Support Center, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-Shinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan. 3. Department of Next Generation Endoscopic Intervention, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. 4. Department of Endoscopy, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-Shinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan. kaz_sum@jikei.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: An automatic carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflating system (SPACE) was developed to stabilize intra-lumenal pressure (ILP) during endoscopic interventions. This study investigated whether SPACE could improve the control and monitoring of extra-lumenal intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) after establishing a perforation during endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) of the gastric wall in porcine models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After first establishing the optimal preset pressure for gastric EFTR in four pigs, we compared IAP dynamics during EFTR between manual insufflation and SPACE using a block-randomized study (n = 10). IAP was percutaneously monitored and plotted on a timeline graph every 5 s. The maximal IAP and the area under the IAP curve exceeding 10 mmHg (AUC≥10 mmHg) were compared between groups, with the agreement between IAP and endolumenally monitored ILP also analyzed for animals in the SPACE group. RESULTS: In the first study, 8 mmHg was identified as the most preferable preset pressure after establishment of the perforation. In the randomized study, the mean maximal IAP in the SPACE group was significantly lower than that in the manual insufflation group (11.0 ± 2.0 mmHg vs. 17.0 ± 3.5 mmHg; P = 0.03). The mean AUC≥10 mmHg was also significantly smaller in the SPACE group. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between IAP and ILP within a range of ± 1.0 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: SPACE could be used to control and safely monitor IAP during gastric EFTR by measuring ILP during perforation of the gastric wall.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: An automatic carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflating system (SPACE) was developed to stabilize intra-lumenal pressure (ILP) during endoscopic interventions. This study investigated whether SPACE could improve the control and monitoring of extra-lumenal intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) after establishing a perforation during endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) of the gastric wall in porcine models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After first establishing the optimal preset pressure for gastric EFTR in four pigs, we compared IAP dynamics during EFTR between manual insufflation and SPACE using a block-randomized study (n = 10). IAP was percutaneously monitored and plotted on a timeline graph every 5 s. The maximal IAP and the area under the IAP curve exceeding 10 mmHg (AUC≥10 mmHg) were compared between groups, with the agreement between IAP and endolumenally monitored ILP also analyzed for animals in the SPACE group. RESULTS: In the first study, 8 mmHg was identified as the most preferable preset pressure after establishment of the perforation. In the randomized study, the mean maximal IAP in the SPACE group was significantly lower than that in the manual insufflation group (11.0 ± 2.0 mmHg vs. 17.0 ± 3.5 mmHg; P = 0.03). The mean AUC≥10 mmHg was also significantly smaller in the SPACE group. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated agreement between IAP and ILP within a range of ± 1.0 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: SPACE could be used to control and safely monitor IAP during gastric EFTR by measuring ILP during perforation of the gastric wall.
Authors: J Neudecker; S Sauerland; E Neugebauer; R Bergamaschi; H J Bonjer; A Cuschieri; K-H Fuchs; Ch Jacobi; F W Jansen; A-M Koivusalo; A Lacy; M J McMahon; B Millat; W Schwenk Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2001-05-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Edward D Auyang; Byron F Santos; Daniel H Enter; Eric S Hungness; Nathaniel J Soper Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-05-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: K Nakajima; J H Moon; S Tsutsui; Y Miyazaki; M Yamasaki; T Yamada; M Kato; K Yasuda; K Sumiyama; N Yahagi; Y Saida; H Kondo; T Nishida; M Mori; Y Doki Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Simon K Lo; Larissa L Fujii-Lau; Brintha K Enestvedt; Joo Ha Hwang; Vani Konda; Michael A Manfredi; John T Maple; Faris M Murad; Rahul Pannala; Karen L Woods; Subhas Banerjee Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: O Meireles; S V Kantsevoy; A N Kalloo; S B Jagannath; S A Giday; P Magno; S P Shih; E J Hanly; C-W Ko; D M Beitler; M R Marohn Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-04-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Derek J Roberts; Jan De Waele; Roman Jaeschke; Manu L N G Malbrain; Bart De Keulenaer; Juan Duchesne; Martin Bjorck; Ari Leppaniemi; Janeth C Ejike; Michael Sugrue; Michael Cheatham; Rao Ivatury; Chad G Ball; Annika Reintam Blaser; Adrian Regli; Zsolt J Balogh; Scott D'Amours; Dieter Debergh; Mark Kaplan; Edward Kimball; Claudia Olvera Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 17.440