Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients

AIM: To compare the impact of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and air insufflation on patient tolerance/safety in deeply sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy.METHODS: Patients referred for colonoscopy were randomized to receive either CO₂ or air insufflation during the procedure. Both the colonoscopist and patient were blinded to the type of gas used. During the procedure, insertion and withdrawal times, caecal intubation rates, total sedation given and capnography readings were recorded. The level of sedation and magnitude of patient discomfort during the procedure was assessed by a nurse using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-3). Patients then graded their level of discomfort and abdominal bloating using a similar VAS. Complications during and after the procedure were recorded.RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were randomized with 72 in the air arm and 70 in the CO₂ arm. Mean age between the two study groups were similar. Insertion time to the caecum was quicker in the CO₂ group at 7.3 min vs 9.9 min with air (P = 0.0083). The average withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups. Caecal intubation rates were 94.4% and 100% in the air and CO₂ groups respectively (P = 0.012). The level of discomfort assessed by the nurse was 0.69 (air) and 0.39 (CO₂) (P = 0.0155) and by the patient 0.82 (air) and 0.46 (CO₂) (P = 0.0228). The level of abdominal bloating was 0.97 (air) and 0.36 (CO₂) (P = 0.001). Capnography readings trended to be higher in the CO₂ group at the commencement, caecal intubation, and conclusion of the procedure, even though this was not significantly different when compared to readings obtained during air insufflation. There were no complications in both arms.CONCLUSION: CO₂ insufflation during colonoscopy is more efficacious than air, allowing quicker and better cecal intubation rates. Abdominal discomfort and bloating were significantly less with CO₂ insufflation.     

Carbon dioxide insufflation during withdrawal of the colonoscope improved postprocedure discomfort: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

In colonoscopy, the question of when and how to use carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation remains uncertain. Inspection for the pathological changes during colonoscopy takes place during the withdrawal of the scope. This study aimed to determine whether CO(2) insufflation only at the withdrawal of the colonoscope has an effect comparable to that of CO(2) usage throughout the course of the procedure. Symptomatic patients were randomized in three groups: (1) patients given air insufflation (A; n = 33); (2) patients given CO(2) insufflation only at the time of scope withdrawal (CW; n = 33); and (3) patients given the CO(2) insufflation (C; n = 34) for the whole course of the colonoscopy. Patients were requested to answer questionnaires about their pain score during, at the end, and 1 h after the colonoscopy by using a pain numerical scale ranging from 0 to 10. The disparities of the pain score were noted at the end of the procedure and 1 h after the procedure (p = 0.026 and p < 0.001, respectively). We further analyzed the scores between two of the three groups. Both CW (vs. A; procedure end: p = 0.012, 1 h after: p = 0.001) and C (vs. A; procedure end: p = 0.072, 1 h after: p < 0.001) showed less postprocedure pain when compared with the group A. The pain score between CW and C were similar at each time segment (procedure end: p = 0.555, 1 h after: p = 0.491). CO(2) insufflation merely at the withdrawal of the colonoscope improved postprocedural abdominal discomfort and the effect was not inferior to that of full course CO(2) insufflation.     

Carbon dioxide insufflation in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection reduces mediastinal emphysema: A randomized,double-blind,controlled trial

AIM To assess the efficacy of CO2 insufflation for reduction of mediastinal emphysema(ME) immediately after endoscopic submucosal dissection(ESD).METHODS A total of 46 patients who were to undergo esophageal ESD were randomly assigned to receive either CO2 insufflation(CO2 group, n = 24) or air insufflation(Air group, n = 22). Computed tomography(CT) was carried out immediately after ESD and the next morning. Pain and abdominal distention were chronologically recorded using a 100-mm visual analogue scale(VAS). The volume of residual gas in the digestive tract was measured using CT imaging. RESULTS The incidence of ME immediately after ESD in the CO2 group was significantly lower than that in the Air group(17% vs 55%, P = 0.012). The incidence of ME the next morning was 8.3% vs 32% respectively(P= 0.066). There were no differences in pain scores or distention scores at any post-procedure time points. The volume of residual gas in the digestive tract immediately after ESD was significantly smaller in the CO2 group than that in the Air group(808 m L vs 1173 m L, P = 0.013).CONCLUSION CO2 insufflation during esophageal ESD significantly reduced postprocedural ME. CO2 insufflation also reduced the volume of residual gas in the digestive tract immediately after ESD, but not the VAS scores of pain and distention.     

Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: A prospective randomized trial

Abstract

Introduction. Beside the traditional, intermittent bolus application of propofol, continuous propofol infusion via infusion pump is an alternative procedure for deep sedation during long-lasting interventional endoscopy. However, up to now, there are no randomized comparisons for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods. One hundred patients (ERCP: n = 60, EUS: n = 40) were randomly assigned to receive intermittent bolus application (“bolus group”) or continuous infusion (“perfusor group”) of propofol sedation after induction with 3 mg midazolam for deep sedation. Patients in the bolus group received an initial propofol dose according to body weight (bw <70 kg: 40 mg; bw ≥70 kg 60 mg). In the perfusor group, bw-adapted, continuous propofol infusion (6 mg/kg) via the Injectomat 2000 MC (Fresenius-Kabi) was administered after an initial bolus of 1 mg/kg. Vital signs, dose of propofol, patient cooperation (VAS 1–10), sedation depth, and the recovery time as well as the quality of recovery were evaluated. Results. Total propofol dose in the bolus group 305 ± 155 mg (100–570 mg) and in the perfusor group 343 ± 123 mg (126–590 mg, p = 0.5) were comparable. Oxygen saturation below 90% was seen in four patients of each group, with no need for assisted ventilation. Arterial blood pressure <90 mmHg was documented in two patients in the bolus group and seven patients in the perfusor group (p = 0.16). Patients' cooperation was rated as good in both groups (bolus group, 9.1 ± 0.9; perfusor group, 8.9 ± 1; p = 0.17). Recovery time was significantly shorter in the bolus group compared with the perfusor group (19 ± 5 versus 23 ± 6 min, p < 0.001) whereas the quality of recovery was nearly identical in both groups. Conclusion. Both sedation regimens allow nearly identical good controllability of propofol sedation. However, recovery time was significantly slower and hypotension was tended to occur more often in the perfusor group.     

A short course of corticosteroids prior to surveillance colonoscopy to decrease mucosal inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease patients: Results from a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundInflammation is a known pitfall of surveillance colonoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as it is difficult to differentiate between inflammation and true dysplasia. This randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of a low dose of corticosteroids prior to surveillance colonoscopy to decrease mucosal inflammation.MethodsIBD-patients scheduled for surveillance colonoscopy between July 2008–January 2010 were eligible to participate. Patients were randomized to either two weeks daily 20 mg prednisone and calcium plus vitamin D prior to surveillance colonoscopy or no treatment. All biopsies were reviewed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist who was blinded for medication-use. Statistics were performed using chi-square tests, non-parametric tests and binary logistic regression.ResultsSixty patients (M/F 30/30, UC/CD 31/29) participated: 31 (52%) in the treatment arm and 29 (48%) in the control group. In the treatment arm, 247 biopsies were scored against 262 in the control group. In the treatment arm 27 out of 247 biopsies (10.9%) had a score > 1 on the Geboes scale, against 50 out of 262 biopsies (19.1%) in the control group, p = 0.013. In total, 58% of the treatment arm against 66% of the control group had endoscopic or histological mucosal inflammation (p = 0.6). There was a trend for patients in the treatment arm to have less severe inflammation compared with the control group, however this was not significant (p = 0.12).ConclusionsIn our cohort, a short course of corticosteroids decreases the overall histological disease activity in individual biopsies without major side-effects. Moreover, there is a trend for corticosteroids to decrease the maximum severity of both endoscopic and histological disease activity per patient.