Comparison of procedural sequence in same-day bidirectional endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of procedural sequence in same-day bidirectional endoscopy. Methods: We searched OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the procedural sequence...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Korean journal of internal medicine 2020, 35(2), , pp.331-341
Hauptverfasser: Choi, Geun Joo, Oh, Hyoung-Chul, Seong, Hee-Kyeong, Kim, Jeong Wook, Ko, Jin Soo, Kang, Hyun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of procedural sequence in same-day bidirectional endoscopy. Methods: We searched OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the procedural sequences in same-day bidirectional endoscopy, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. The sedative and analgesic doses required, discomfort and satisfaction scores, procedure time, recovery time, adenoma detection rate, and failed cecal intubation were evaluated. Adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular complications, were also assessed. Results: We included six studies, with 1,848 patients in total. The requirement for sedative treatment was significantly lesser in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.54 to -0.24; p = 0.12; 1= 49%). Discomfort, scored by patients during the EGD procedure, was significantly lesser in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (SMD, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.09; p = 0.02; I-2 = 73%), while it was comparable during colonoscopy between the two sequences. Recovery time was significantly shorter in the EGD-colonoscopy sequence than in the colonoscopy-EGD sequence (SMD, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.30; p = 0.28; I-2 = 21%). Total procedure duration, EGD, colonoscopy, cecal intubation time and incidence, incidences of pathologic findings, and adenoma detection were comparable between the two sequences. There was no significant difference in the incidences of desaturation, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and tachycardia between the two sequences. Conclusions: When conducting same-day bidirectional endoscopy, EGD followed by colonoscopy is the most beneficial sequence to be used because patients require lower sedative doses, recover faster, and report lesser discomfort.
ISSN:1226-3303
2005-6648
DOI:10.3904/kjim.2019.319