Nitrous oxide for colonoscopy

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

Gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013 and last updated in 2017. Laparoscopic surgery is now widely performed to treat various abdominal diseases. Currently, carbon dioxide is the most frequently used gas for insufflation of the abdominal cavity (pneumoperitoneum). Although carbon dioxide meets most of the requirements for pneumoperitoneum, the absorption of carbon dioxide may be associated with adverse events. Therefore, other gases have been introduced as alternatives to carbon dioxide for establishing pneumoperitoneum.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, benefits, and harms of different gases (e.g. carbon dioxide, helium, argon, nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and room air) used for establishing pneumoperitoneum in participants undergoing laparoscopic abdominal or gynaecological pelvic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, four other databases, and three trials registers on 15 October 2021 together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum in participants (irrespective of age, sex, or race) undergoing laparoscopic abdominal or gynaecological pelvic surgery under general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs, randomising 583 participants, comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum: nitrous oxide (four trials), helium (five trials), or room air (one trial) was compared to carbon dioxide. All the RCTs were single-centre studies. Four RCTs were conducted in the USA; two in Australia; one in China; one in Finland; one in Iran; and one in the Netherlands. The mean age of the participants ranged from 27.6 years to 49.0 years. Four trials randomised participants to nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum (132 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (128 participants). None of the trials was at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum compared to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on cardiopulmonary complications (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.62, 95% CI 0.78 to 8.85; 3 studies, 204 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or surgical morbidity (Peto OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.31; 3 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no serious adverse events related to either nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (4 studies, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Four trials randomised participants to helium pneumoperitoneum (69 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (75 participants) and one trial involving 33 participants did not state the number of participants in each group. None of the trials was at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of helium pneumoperitoneum compared to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on cardiopulmonary complications (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.28 to 9.72; 3 studies, 128 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or surgical morbidity (5 studies, 177 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were three serious adverse events (subcutaneous emphysema) related to helium pneumoperitoneum (3 studies, 128 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One trial randomised participants to room air pneumoperitoneum (70 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (76 participants). The trial was at high risk of bias. There were no cardiopulmonary complications, serious adverse events, or deaths observed related to either room air or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum.    AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of nitrous oxide, helium, and room air pneumoperitoneum compared to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on any of the primary outcomes, including cardiopulmonary complications, surgical morbidity, and serious adverse events. The safety of nitrous oxide, helium, and room air pneumoperitoneum has yet to be established, especially in people with high anaesthetic risk.

The Use of a Fixed 50:50 Mixture of Nitrous Oxide and Oxygen to Reduce Lumbar Puncture-Induced Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Lumbar puncture (LP) is stressful and often painful. We evaluated the efficacy of a fixed 50% nitrous oxide−oxygen mixture (50%N2O-O2) versus placebo to reduce immediate procedural pain and anxiety during LP performed in an emergency setting. We conducted a randomized controlled trial involving adults who needed a cerebrospinal fluid analysis in an emergency department. Patients were randomly assigned to inhale either 50%N2O-O2 or medical air. The primary endpoint, assessed using a numerical scale, was the maximum pain felt by the patient during the procedure and the maximum anxiety and satisfaction as secondary outcomes. Eighty-eight patients were randomized and analyzed (ITT). The maximal pain was 5.0 ± 2.9 for patients receiving air and 4.2 ± 3.0 for patients receiving 50%N2O-O2 (effect-size = −0.27 [−0.69; 0.14], p = 0.20). LP-induced anxiety was 4.7 ± 2.8 vs. 3.7 ± 3.7 (p = 0.13), and the proportion of patients with significant anxiety (score ≥ 4/10) was 72.7% vs. 50.0% (p = 0.03). Overall satisfaction was higher among patients receiving 50%N2O-O2 (7.4 ± 2.4 vs. 8.9 ± 1.6, p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were attributable to 50%N2O-O2 inhalation. Although inhalation of 50%N2O-O2 failed to reduce LP-induced pain in an emergency setting, it tended to reduce anxiety and significantly increased patient satisfaction.

Nitrous oxide versus lidocaine versus no analgesic for in-office hysteroscopy: a randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of inhaled nitrous oxide (INO) on pain control during in-office hysteroscopy with 1% lidocaine paracervical infiltration and no analgesic.

DESIGN

Single-blind stratified randomised clinical trial with masked assessment by a third party.

SETTING

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in a Spanish hospital.

POPULATION

Women who underwent hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Patients were stratified into three groups according to the purpose of the hysteroscopy (biopsy, polypectomy or tubal sterilisation) and then assigned to different treatment groups through a permuted-blocks randomisation within strata. Pain scale was provided by a gynaecologist totally blinded to procedures and treatments. Effects were assessed using a one-way analysis of variance following an intention-to-treat approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 mm.

RESULTS

A total of 314 women were included: 105 to INO, 104 to 1% lidocaine and 105 to no analgesic. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Mean VAS score after the procedure was 34.7 ± 25.8 mm, 36.1 ± 22.9 mm (P = 1.0) and 47.3 ± 28.2 mm (P = 0.001) for INO, 1% lidocaine and no analgesic, respectively. No adverse events were reported in 91 (86.7%) patients in the INO group compared with 79 (76%) in the 1%-lidocaine group (P = 0.04) and 85 (81%) in the no-analgesic group (P = 0.26).

CONCLUSION

INO was as effective as 1% lidocaine in pain control for in-office hysteroscopy and was better tolerated. The no-analgesic group presented the poorer results, so was the least recommended clinical option.

Colonoscopy quality with Entonox®vs intravenous conscious sedation: 18608 colonoscopy retrospective study

AIM

To compare colonoscopy quality with nitrous oxide gas (Entonox®) against intravenous conscious sedation using midazolam plus opioid.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively held database of 18608 colonoscopies carried out in Lothian health board hospitals between July 2013 and January 2016. The quality of colonoscopies performed with Entonox was compared to intravenous conscious sedation (abbreviated in this article as IVM). Furthermore, the quality of colonoscopies performed with an unmedicated group was compared to IVM. The study used the following key markers of colonoscopy quality: (1) patient comfort scores; (2) caecal intubation rates (CIRs); and (3) polyp detection rates (PDRs). We used binary logistic regression to model the data.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the rate of moderate-to-extreme discomfort between the Entonox and IVM groups (17.9% vs 18.8%; OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.95-1.18, P = 0.27). Patients in the unmedicated group were less likely to experience moderate-to-extreme discomfort than those in the IVM group (11.4% vs 18.8%; OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.60-0.83, P < 0.001). There was no difference in caecal intubation between the Entonox and IVM groups (94.4% vs 93.7%; OR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.92-1.28, P = 0.34). There was no difference in caecal intubation between the unmedicated and IVM groups (94.2% vs 93.7%; OR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.79-1.22, P = 0.87). Polyp detection in the Entonox group was not different from IVM group (35.0% vs 33.1%; OR = 1.01, 95%CI: 0.93-1.10, P = 0.79). Polyp detection in the unmedicated group was not significantly different from the IVM group (37.4% vs 33.1%; OR = 0.97, 95%CI: 0.87-1.08, P = 0.60).

CONCLUSION

The use of Entonox was not associated with lower colonoscopy quality when compared to intravenous conscious sedation using midazolam plus opioid.

Gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the review published in 2013.Laparoscopic surgery is now widely performed to treat various abdominal diseases. Currently, carbon dioxide is the most frequently used gas for insufflation of the abdominal cavity (pneumoperitoneum). Although carbon dioxide meets most of the requirements for pneumoperitoneum, the absorption of carbon dioxide may be associated with adverse events. People with high anaesthetic risk are more likely to experience cardiopulmonary complications and adverse events, for example hypercapnia and acidosis, which has to be avoided by hyperventilation. Therefore, other gases have been introduced as alternatives to carbon dioxide for establishing pneumoperitoneum.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, benefits, and harms of different gases (i.e. carbon dioxide, helium, argon, nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and room air) used for establishing pneumoperitoneum in participants undergoing laparoscopic general abdominal or gynaecological pelvic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to September 2016), Ovid Embase (1974 to September 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to September 2016), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to September 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (September 2016), and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (September 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum in participants (irrespective of age, sex, or race) undergoing laparoscopic abdominal or gynaecological pelvic surgery under general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence, MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs, randomising 519 participants, comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum: nitrous oxide (three trials), helium (five trials), or room air (one trial) was compared to carbon dioxide. Three trials randomised participants to nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum (100 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (96 participants). None of the trials was at low risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide on cardiopulmonary complications (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.43; two studies; 140 participants; very low quality of evidence), or surgical morbidity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.18 to 5.71; two studies; 143 participants; very low quality of evidence). There were no serious adverse events related to either nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (three studies; 196 participants; very low quality of evidence). We could not combine data from two trials (140 participants) which individually showed lower pain scores (a difference of about one visual analogue score on a scale of 1 to 10 with lower numbers indicating less pain) with nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum at various time points on the first postoperative day, and this was rated asvery low quality .Four trials randomised participants to helium pneumoperitoneum (69 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (75 participants) and one trial involving 33 participants did not state the number of participants in each group. None of the trials was at low risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of helium or carbon dioxide on cardiopulmonary complications (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 6.12; three studies; 128 participants; very low quality of evidence) or pain scores (visual analogue score on a scale of 1 to 10 with lower numbers indicating less pain; MD 0.49 cm, 95% CI -0.28 to 1.26; two studies; 108 participants; very low quality of evidence). There were three serious adverse events (subcutaneous emphysema) related to helium pneumoperitoneum (three studies; 128 participants; very low quality of evidence).One trial randomised participants to room air pneumoperitoneum (70 participants) or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (76 participants). The trial was at unclear risk of bias. There were no cardiopulmonary complications or serious adverse events observed related to either room air or carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (both outcomes very low quality of evidence). The evidence of lower hospital costs and reduced pain during the first postoperative day with room air pneumoperitoneum compared with carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (a difference of about one visual analogue score on a scale of 1 to 10 with lower numbers indicating less pain, was rated as very low quality of evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the current evidence is very low. The effects of nitrous oxide and helium pneumoperitoneum compared with carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum are uncertain. Evidence from one trial of small sample size suggests that room air pneumoperitoneum may decrease hospital costs in people undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery. The safety of nitrous oxide, helium, and room air pneumoperitoneum has yet to be established.Further trials on this topic are needed, and should compare various gases (i.e. nitrous oxide, helium, argon, nitrogen, and room air) with carbon dioxide under standard pressure pneumoperitoneum with cold gas insufflation for people with high anaesthetic risk. Future trials should include outcomes such as complications, serious adverse events, quality of life, and pain.

Care-related pain in hospitalized patients: severity and patient perception of management

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients commonly undergo painful procedures, but little is known about care-related pain (CRP) in the overall population of inpatients. We conducted a cross-sectional 1-day survey to assess the prevalence and characteristics of CRP and its management in all units of a university hospital in Paris and determined the factors linked to severe CRP.

METHODS

All patients who were able to communicate and were hospitalized for at least 24 h but not in a day-care or neonatal unit were included.

RESULTS

From 938 patients who completed the questionnaire, 554 patients reported pain within the previous 24 h, for a 59% prevalence of pain, and 540 (58%) had experienced CRP in the previous 15 days (51% males; mean [SD] age 54 [18] years). Of 907 procedures, 330 (37%) resulted in severe pain. The most-often reported painful procedures were vascular punctures and patient mobilization. Severe CRP was associated with long hospitalization; non-vascular invasive punctures, catheterization, mobilization or radiological examination; or pain during the previous 24 h due to surgery or treatment. Only half of the patients declared that they had received information regarding the painful procedure. Treatment for pain was proposed and delivered in less than one quarter of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results of a survey of pain management in hospitalized patients relate to a wide variety of medical conditions and procedures. Health-care workers should be more systematic in managing CRP, and attention should be paid to patients at greatest risk of severe CRP.

Nitrous oxide use during colonoscopy: a national survey of English screening colonoscopists

INTRODUCTION

Nitrous oxide can improve patient experience during colonoscopy, and its rapid elimination minimises after effects and inconvenience. Despite its advantages, nitrous oxide is used infrequently in the UK. We sought to understand the reasons for its low use.

METHODS

Colonoscopists within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) were invited to participate in a web-based survey assessing the availability, current practices and perceptions towards nitrous oxide. Respondents were able to select predefined answers or offer written responses. Free text responses were assessed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 68% of the English BCSP colonoscopists. Nitrous oxide was available to 73% of respondents but with considerable regional variation. Most colonoscopists rated the properties of nitrous oxide favourably and would use it if they had a colonoscopy themselves. Despite this, nearly half used it in less than 20% of examinations. 80% instruct patients to use nitrous oxide as required, and differences in how it was used in combination with intravenous sedation and analgesia were reported. Written responses suggest nitrous oxide is often used in the patients who are expected to have the least discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

Most colonoscopists perceive that nitrous oxide is effective and reduces inconvenience and would use it themselves if they required a colonoscopy. Studies to improve patient selection and optimise the use of nitrous oxide would be of value.

How we can measure quality in colonoscopy?

Measuring quality is a current need of medical services either to assess their cost-effectiveness or to identify discrepancies requiring refinement. With the advent of bowel cancer screening and increasing patient awareness of bowel symptoms, there has been an unprecedented increase in demand for colonoscopy. Consequently, there is an expanding open-discussion on missed rates of cancer or precancerous polyps during diagnostic/screening colonoscopy and on the rate of adverse events related to therapeutic colonoscopy. Delivering a quality colonoscopy service is therefore a healthcare priority. Colonoscopy is a multi-step process and therefore assessment of all aspects of the procedure must be addressed. Quality in colonoscopy refers to a combination of many patient-centered technical and non-technical skills and knowledge aiming to patient’s safety and satisfaction through a continuous effort for improvement. The benefits of this endless process are hiding behind small details which can eventually make the difference in colonoscopy. Identifying specific quality metrics help to define and shape an optimal service and forms a secure basis of improvement. Τhis paper does not aim to give technical details on how to perform colonoscopy but to summarize what to measure and when, in accordance with the current identified quality indicators and standards for colonoscopy.

Gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is now widely performed to treat various abdominal diseases. Currently, carbon dioxide is the most frequently used gas for insufflation of the abdominal cavity (pneumoperitoneum). Many other gases have been introduced as alternatives to carbon dioxide for establishing pneumoperitoneum.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, benefits, and harms of different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) until September 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only included randomized controlled trials comparing different gases for establishing pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum versus nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum Three trials randomized 196 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (n =96) or nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum (n =100). All of the trials were of high risk of bias. Two trials (n=143) showed lower pain scores in nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum at various time points on the first post-operative day. One trial (n=53) showed no difference in the pain scores between the groups. There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary complications, surgical morbidity, or cardiopulmonary changes between the groups. There were no serious adverse events related to either carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum. Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum versus helium pneumoperitoneum Four trials randomized 144 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum (n =75) or helium pneumoperitoneum (n =69). All of the trials were of high risk of bias. Fewer cardiopulmonary changes were observed with helium pneumoperitoneum than carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum. There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary complications, surgical morbidity, or pain scores. There were three serious adverse events (subcutaneous emphysema) related to helium pneumoperitoneum. Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum versus any other gas pneumoperitoneum There were no randomized controlled trials comparing carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum to any other gas pneumoperitoneum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

1. Nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic abdominal surgery appears to decrease post-operative pain in patients with low anaesthetic risk.2. Helium pneumoperitoneum decreases the cardiopulmonary changes associated with laparoscopic abdominal surgery. However, this did not translate into any clinical benefit over carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum in patients with low anaesthetic risk.3. The safety of nitrous oxide and helium pneumoperitoneum has yet to be established. More randomized controlled trials on this topic are needed. Future trials should include more patients with high anaesthetic risk. Furthermore, such trials need to use adequate methods to reduce the risk of bias.

Analgesia without sedatives during colonoscopies: worth considering?

Colonoscopy is a proven method for bowel cancer screening and is often experienced as a painful procedure. Today, there are two main strategies to facilitate colonoscopy. First, deep sedation results in satisfied patients but increases sedation-associated risks and raises costs for healthcare providers. Second, there is the advocacy for colonoscopies without any form of sedation. This might be an option for a special group of patients, but does not hold true for everybody. Following Moerman’s hypothesis: “If pain is the crucial point, why do we need sedation?” this review shows the analgesic options for a painless procedure, increasing success rates without increasing risk of sedation. There are two agents, with the potential to be a nearly ideal analgesic agent for colonoscopy: alfentanil and nitrous oxide (N₂O). Administration of either substance causes the patient to be comfortable yet alert and facilitates a short turnover. Advantages of these drugs include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level, rapid recovery, and an excellent safety profile.