Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013 May-Jun;47(5):e45-9. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31825c023a.

The efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy with consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopy in moderately sedated outpatients: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

Author information

1
Department of Internal Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae-gu, Busan, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

GOALS AND BACKGROUND:

Colonoscopy with consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopy (CCEGD) can be more convenient than performing each procedure individually. There has been no randomized controlled trial comparing carbon dioxide (CO2) versus air insufflations during CCEGD in sedated patients. CO2 insufflation instead of air during CCEGD may reduce abdominal pain and be more comfortable. We investigated the efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation during CCEGD in moderately sedated outpatients.

STUDY:

This was a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. A total of 96 outpatients were randomly assigned to the groups of CO2 or air insufflation. Postprocedure pain was assessed using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale, and the proportion of pain-free patients was compared between the groups. Waist circumferences and end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) were measured.

RESULTS:

Among 96 patients, cecal intubation failed in 2 patients, who were excluded from the analysis. Forty-eight patients in the CO2 and 46 patients in the air group completed the study. There was significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the proportion of pain-free patients 30 minutes after the procedures [air group, 35/46 (76.1%) vs. CO2 group, 44/48 (91.6%)] (P=0.03). However, there was no significant difference in the proportion at 6 and 24 hours after the procedures. The mean increase in waist circumference was greater with air than with CO2 (1.54 vs. 0.18 cm, P<0.001). The ETCO2 measured immediately after the procedures was slightly higher in the CO2 group than in the air group (38.6 vs. 37.2 mm Hg, P=0.02), but the values were within the normal range. No significant adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS:

CO2 insufflation during CCEGD reduced postprocedural pain and distension compared with air. It was comfortable and safe to use in moderately sedated outpatients.

PMID:
22858513
DOI:
10.1097/MCG.0b013e31825c023a
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center