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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2017-06, Vol.85 (6), p.1255-1262
Hauptverfasser: 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
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