Comparison of carbon dioxide and air insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy in moderate-sedation patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
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 consecu...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2017-06, Vol.85 (6), p.1255-1262 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1262 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1255 |
container_title | Gastrointestinal endoscopy |
container_volume | 85 |
creator | Kim, Su Young, MD Chung, Jun-Won, MD, PhD Park, Dong Kyun, MD, PhD Kwon, Kwang An, MD, PhD Kim, Kyoung Oh, MD, PhD Kim, Yoon Jae, MD, PhD Kim, Jung Ho, MD |
description | 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 .) |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.042 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1844351120</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0016510716307970</els_id><sourcerecordid>1844351120</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d6315cc02304c55c6ae1f5187a3565c5b992f9b9e82a2fccecf8f71e1acc75163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UsFu1DAQtRCIbgsfwAX5yKFZ7CSOE5CQ0LYUpEocgLPljCeVF8cOdlKxfA2_wC_wZThs4cCBk8ee95487w0hTzjbcsab5_vtjcVtmct837K6vEc2nHWyaKTs7pMNy51CcCZPyGlKe8ZYW1b8ITkpZdt2ohYb8mMXxklHm4KnYaCgY58rY8NXa5Bqb6i2kVqflmFwerZrc4nW3_z8DsEnhGW2t0gvry5-gyG44EOCMB0yiY7BYNQzFgnNkTzlA_2cXlBNpxjShLAKnFMTlt5h0TvrzTmNWSyM9huukn6OwblcztFq94g8GLRL-PjuPCOf3lx-3L0trt9fvdu9vi6glvVcmKbiAoCVFatBCGg08kHwVupKNAJE33Xl0PUdtqUuBwCEoR0kR64BpOBNdUaeHXXzN78smGY12gTonPYYlqR4W9eV4LxkGcqPUMgTpYiDmqIddTwoztSalNqrnJRak1qfclKZ8_ROfulHNH8Zf6LJgJdHAOYhby1GlSBbB2hszKYpE-x_5V_9w4bsrAXtPuMB0z4s0Wf3FFepVEx9WFdl3ZQ8OJOdZNUvnP--KQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1844351120</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of carbon dioxide and air insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy in moderate-sedation patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Kim, Su Young, MD ; Chung, Jun-Won, MD, PhD ; Park, Dong Kyun, MD, PhD ; Kwon, Kwang An, MD, PhD ; Kim, Kyoung Oh, MD, PhD ; Kim, Yoon Jae, MD, PhD ; Kim, Jung Ho, MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Kim, Su Young, MD ; Chung, Jun-Won, MD, PhD ; Park, Dong Kyun, MD, PhD ; Kwon, Kwang An, MD, PhD ; Kim, Kyoung Oh, MD, PhD ; Kim, Yoon Jae, MD, PhD ; Kim, Jung Ho, MD</creatorcontrib><description>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 .)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-5107</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6779</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.042</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27889545</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Abdominal Pain - drug therapy ; Adenoma - diagnosis ; Adult ; Aged ; Air ; Carbon Dioxide ; Colonoscopy - methods ; Colorectal Neoplasms - drug therapy ; Conscious Sedation ; Double-Blind Method ; Endoscopy, Digestive System - methods ; Female ; Gastroenterology and Hepatology ; Humans ; Insufflation - methods ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pain Measurement ; Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy</subject><ispartof>Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2017-06, Vol.85 (6), p.1255-1262</ispartof><rights>American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</rights><rights>2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d6315cc02304c55c6ae1f5187a3565c5b992f9b9e82a2fccecf8f71e1acc75163</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d6315cc02304c55c6ae1f5187a3565c5b992f9b9e82a2fccecf8f71e1acc75163</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6486-8445</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.042$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27889545$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kim, Su Young, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, Jun-Won, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Dong Kyun, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Kwang An, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Kyoung Oh, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Yoon Jae, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jung Ho, MD</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of carbon dioxide and air insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy in moderate-sedation patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial</title><title>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</title><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><description>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 .)</description><subject>Abdominal Pain - drug therapy</subject><subject>Adenoma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Air</subject><subject>Carbon Dioxide</subject><subject>Colonoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>Conscious Sedation</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Endoscopy, Digestive System - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterology and Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Insufflation - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy</subject><issn>0016-5107</issn><issn>1097-6779</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UsFu1DAQtRCIbgsfwAX5yKFZ7CSOE5CQ0LYUpEocgLPljCeVF8cOdlKxfA2_wC_wZThs4cCBk8ee95487w0hTzjbcsab5_vtjcVtmct837K6vEc2nHWyaKTs7pMNy51CcCZPyGlKe8ZYW1b8ITkpZdt2ohYb8mMXxklHm4KnYaCgY58rY8NXa5Bqb6i2kVqflmFwerZrc4nW3_z8DsEnhGW2t0gvry5-gyG44EOCMB0yiY7BYNQzFgnNkTzlA_2cXlBNpxjShLAKnFMTlt5h0TvrzTmNWSyM9huukn6OwblcztFq94g8GLRL-PjuPCOf3lx-3L0trt9fvdu9vi6glvVcmKbiAoCVFatBCGg08kHwVupKNAJE33Xl0PUdtqUuBwCEoR0kR64BpOBNdUaeHXXzN78smGY12gTonPYYlqR4W9eV4LxkGcqPUMgTpYiDmqIddTwoztSalNqrnJRak1qfclKZ8_ROfulHNH8Zf6LJgJdHAOYhby1GlSBbB2hszKYpE-x_5V_9w4bsrAXtPuMB0z4s0Wf3FFepVEx9WFdl3ZQ8OJOdZNUvnP--KQ</recordid><startdate>20170601</startdate><enddate>20170601</enddate><creator>Kim, Su Young, MD</creator><creator>Chung, Jun-Won, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Park, Dong Kyun, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Kwon, Kwang An, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Kim, Kyoung Oh, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Kim, Yoon Jae, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Kim, Jung Ho, MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6486-8445</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170601</creationdate><title>Comparison of carbon dioxide and air insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy in moderate-sedation patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial</title><author>Kim, Su Young, MD ; Chung, Jun-Won, MD, PhD ; Park, Dong Kyun, MD, PhD ; Kwon, Kwang An, MD, PhD ; Kim, Kyoung Oh, MD, PhD ; Kim, Yoon Jae, MD, PhD ; Kim, Jung Ho, MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d6315cc02304c55c6ae1f5187a3565c5b992f9b9e82a2fccecf8f71e1acc75163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Pain - drug therapy</topic><topic>Adenoma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Air</topic><topic>Carbon Dioxide</topic><topic>Colonoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>Conscious Sedation</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Endoscopy, Digestive System - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterology and Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Insufflation - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kim, Su Young, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, Jun-Won, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Dong Kyun, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwon, Kwang An, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Kyoung Oh, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Yoon Jae, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jung Ho, MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kim, Su Young, MD</au><au>Chung, Jun-Won, MD, PhD</au><au>Park, Dong Kyun, MD, PhD</au><au>Kwon, Kwang An, MD, PhD</au><au>Kim, Kyoung Oh, MD, PhD</au><au>Kim, Yoon Jae, MD, PhD</au><au>Kim, Jung Ho, MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of carbon dioxide and air insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy in moderate-sedation patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial</atitle><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><date>2017-06-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1255</spage><epage>1262</epage><pages>1255-1262</pages><issn>0016-5107</issn><eissn>1097-6779</eissn><abstract>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 .)</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27889545</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.042</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6486-8445</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0016-5107 |
ispartof | Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2017-06, Vol.85 (6), p.1255-1262 |
issn | 0016-5107 1097-6779 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1844351120 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings; MEDLINE |
subjects | Abdominal Pain - drug therapy Adenoma - diagnosis Adult Aged Air Carbon Dioxide Colonoscopy - methods Colorectal Neoplasms - drug therapy Conscious Sedation Double-Blind Method Endoscopy, Digestive System - methods Female Gastroenterology and Hepatology Humans Insufflation - methods Male Middle Aged Pain Measurement Pain, Postoperative - drug therapy |
title | Comparison of carbon dioxide and air insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy in moderate-sedation patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T02%3A50%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20and%20air%20insufflation%20during%C2%A0consecutive%20EGD%20and%20colonoscopy%20in%20moderate-sedation%20patients:%20a%20prospective,%20double-blind,%20randomized%20controlled%20trial&rft.jtitle=Gastrointestinal%20endoscopy&rft.au=Kim,%20Su%20Young,%20MD&rft.date=2017-06-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1255&rft.epage=1262&rft.pages=1255-1262&rft.issn=0016-5107&rft.eissn=1097-6779&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.042&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1844351120%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1844351120&rft_id=info:pmid/27889545&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0016510716307970&rfr_iscdi=true |