Ailín C Rogers1,2, Dayna Van De Hoef3,4, Shaheel M Sahebally3,4, Des C Winter3,4. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. ailinrogers@gmail.com. 2. Centre for Colorectal Disease, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. ailinrogers@gmail.com. 3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 4. Centre for Colorectal Disease, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been used as an alternative to air insufflation at endoscopy with good results; however, uptake of the technique has been poor, possibly due to perceived lack of outcome equivalency. This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of CO2 versus air in reducing pain post-colonoscopy and furthermore examines other key performance indicators (KPIs) such as sedative use, procedure times and polyp detection rates. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized studies from 2004 to 2019, reporting outcomes for patients undergoing colonoscopy with air or CO2 insufflation, who reported pain on a numerical or visual analogue scale (VAS). Results were reported as mean differences (MD) or pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of 3586 citations, 23 studies comprising 3217 patients were analysed. Patients undergoing colonoscopy with air insufflation had 30% higher intraprocedural pain scores than those receiving CO2 (VAS 3.4 versus 2.6, MD -0.7, 95% CI - 1.4-0.0, p = 0.05), with a sustained beneficial effect amongst those in the CO2 group at 30 min, 1-2-h and 6-h post procedure (MD - 0.8, - 0.6 and - 0.2, respectively, p < 0.001 for all), as well as less distension, bloating and flatulence (p < 0.01 for all). There were no differences between the two groups in KPIs such as the sedation required, procedure time, caecal intubation or polyp detection rates. CONCLUSIONS: CO2 insufflation improves patient comfort without compromising colonoscopic performance.
BACKGROUND:Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been used as an alternative to air insufflation at endoscopy with good results; however, uptake of the technique has been poor, possibly due to perceived lack of outcome equivalency. This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of CO2 versus air in reducing pain post-colonoscopy and furthermore examines other key performance indicators (KPIs) such as sedative use, procedure times and polyp detection rates. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized studies from 2004 to 2019, reporting outcomes for patients undergoing colonoscopy with air or CO2 insufflation, who reported pain on a numerical or visual analogue scale (VAS). Results were reported as mean differences (MD) or pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of 3586 citations, 23 studies comprising 3217 patients were analysed. Patients undergoing colonoscopy with air insufflation had 30% higher intraprocedural pain scores than those receiving CO2 (VAS 3.4 versus 2.6, MD -0.7, 95% CI - 1.4-0.0, p = 0.05), with a sustained beneficial effect amongst those in the CO2 group at 30 min, 1-2-h and 6-h post procedure (MD - 0.8, - 0.6 and - 0.2, respectively, p < 0.001 for all), as well as less distension, bloating and flatulence (p < 0.01 for all). There were no differences between the two groups in KPIs such as the sedation required, procedure time, caecal intubation or polyp detection rates. CONCLUSIONS:CO2 insufflation improves patient comfort without compromising colonoscopic performance.
Authors: Matthew D Rutter; Amit Chattree; Jamie A Barbour; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Pradeep Bhandari; Brian P Saunders; Andrew M Veitch; John Anderson; Bjorn J Rembacken; Maurice B Loughrey; Rupert Pullan; William V Garrett; Gethin Lewis; Sunil Dolwani Journal: Gut Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: W L Wang; Z H Wu; Q Sun; J F Wei; X F Chen; D K Zhou; L Zhou; H Y Xie; S S Zheng Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Jürgen Feisthammel; Kien Vu Trung; Marcus Hollenbach; Joachim Mössner; Albrecht Hoffmeister Journal: Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol Date: 2018-09
Authors: Yen-Ju Chen; Jennifer Lee; Magaly Puryear; Roy K H Wong; Jason M Lake; Corrine L Maydonovitch; Lavern Belle; Fouad J Moawad Journal: Gastroenterol Nurs Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 0.978
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