Insufflation Using Carbon Dioxide Versus Room Air During Colonoscopy: Comparison of Patient Comfort, Recovery Time, and Nursing Resources

Transient End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide Elevation During Pediatric Upper Endoscopy With Carbon Dioxide Insufflation: Is It True Hypercapnia?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic insufflation, long performed using air, is being replaced by carbon dioxide (CO2) at many pediatric centers, despite limited published data on its use in children. We have previously demonstrated that CO2 use during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in non-intubated children is associated with transient elevations of end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2). This observation raised concerns about possible CO2 inhalation and systemic absorption. Here, we investigate this concern by concurrently measuring both EtCO2 and transcutaneous CO2 (tCO2) during upper endoscopic procedures in children.

AIM

To determine if elevations in EtCO2 levels seen in non-intubated children undergoing CO2 insufflation during EGD are associated with elevated systemic CO2 levels.

METHODS

Double-blinded, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Children were randomized 1:1 to receive either CO2 or air for endoscopic insufflation. EtCO2 was sampled with a CO2-sampling nasal cannula and tCO2 was monitored using the Radiometer transcutaneous monitoring device.

RESULTS

Fifty nine patients were enrolled; 30 patients in the CO2 insufflation group and 29 in the air group. All patients underwent a procedure involving an EGD. Transient elevations in EtCO2 (defined as >60 mmHg) were observed only in the CO2 insufflation group. This contrasted with the similar elevations of tCO2 between the CO2 and air insufflation groups. None of these events were of clinically significant magnitude or duration.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the observed transient elevations in EtCO2 seen during EGD in non-intubated children receiving CO2 insufflation are most likely measurements of eructated CO2 without evidence of excessive systemic absorption of CO2.

KeyLoop: Mechanical Retraction of the Abdominal Wall for Gasless Laparoscopy

Background. Despite favorable outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in high-income countries, its implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is challenging given a shortage of consumable supplies, high cost, and risk of power outages. To overcome these barriers, we designed a mechanical retractor that provides vertical tension on the anterior abdominal wall. Methods. The retractor design is anatomically and mathematically optimized to provide exposure similar to traditional gas-based insufflation methods. Anatomical data from computed tomography scans were used to define retractor size. The retractor is constructed of biocompatible stainless steel rods and paired with a table-mounted lifting system to provide 5 degrees of freedom. Structural integrity was assessed through finite element analysis (FEA) and load testing. Functional testing was performed in a laparotomy model. Results. A user guide based on patient height and weight was created to customize retractor size, and 4 retractor sizes were constructed. FEA data using a 13.6 kg mass (15 mm Hg pneumoperitoneum) show a maximum of 30 mm displacement with no permanent deformation. Physical load testing with applied weight from 0 to 13.6 kg shows a maximum of 60 mm displacement, again without permanent deformation. Retraction achieved a 57% larger field of view compared to an unretracted state in a laparotomy model. Conclusions. The KeyLoop retractor maintains structural integrity, is easily sterilized, and can be readily manufactured, making it a viable alternative to traditional insufflation methods. For surgeons and patients in LMICs, the KeyLoop provides a means to increase access to laparoscopic surgery.

Improving quality of care in endoscopy of inflammatory bowel disease: can we do better?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopy plays a key role in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There is an increased need for quality assurance programs that evaluate the quality, safety and patient experiences of endoscopy, by assessing procedural and clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to summarize the most important quality indicators of endoscopy in IBD patients and could serve as the basis to improve quality endoscopic procedures and patients' perception of endoscopy in the future. However, further studies and consensus reports are necessary to standardize the quality of care in the endoscopy unit of all IBD centers.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Developing an understanding of the patient-reported perception is important for both clinicians and patients, as it facilitates patient engagement with their care. Moreover, implementing education in reporting is crucial f and the use of verifiable databases, generated from electronic reporting systems, should be encouraged rather than unverified self-reporting, to have greater validity for documenting and to formally evaluate endoscopic practice data with audits. The use of artificial intelligence may improve the quality of endoscopy, by increasing the adenoma detection rate and helping endoscopists in the challenging differentiation between inflammatory and neoplastic lesions.

Is Carbon Dioxide Insufflation During Endoscopy in Children as Safe and as Effective as We Think?

OBJECTIVES

Distension of the gastrointestinal lumen is crucial for visualization and advancement during endoscopic procedures. An increasing number of pediatric centers now use carbon dioxide (CO2) preferentially over air as many adult studies and a few pediatric studies have concluded that CO2 is better tolerated than air, especially for colonoscopy.

AIMS

The aim of the study was to determine if CO2 is as safe and as effective as air and if it reduces abdominal discomfort and distension in children undergoing upper endoscopy and colonoscopy.

METHODS

Double blinded, prospective, randomized clinical study. Patient- and nursing-reported outcomes of pain and distension were recorded. End tidal CO2 (EtCO2) was monitored continuously with a CO2-sampling nasal cannula for patients undergoing procedural sedation and via the endotracheal tube for those who were intubated.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-eight patients with 180 procedures were enrolled, 91 procedures were randomized to receive CO2, and 89 to air. Groups did not differ significantly with respect to nursing-assessed abdominal discomfort, change in girth from baseline, or endoscopist-perceived ease of inflation. Use of CO2 was associated with transient spikes in the EtCO2 (≥60 mmHg) in a significant number of patients during sedated upper endoscopy without endotracheal intubation. There was a reduction of bloating and flatulence for all procedures in the CO2 group.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of using CO2 for insufflation were minimal in our patients. The observed transient elevations of EtCO2 during sedated upper endoscopy raise concerns of possible systemic hypercarbia. The wisdom of its routine use for all pediatric endoscopic procedures is questioned.

Nurse-Led Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative Setting: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Nurses provide care at each phase of the complex, perioperative pathway and are well placed to identify areas of care requiring investigation in randomized controlled trials. Yet, currently, the scope of nurse-led randomized controlled trials conducted within the perioperative setting are unknown. This scoping review aims to identify areas of perioperative care in which nurse-led randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to identify issues impacting upon the quality of these trials and identify gaps for future investigation.

METHODS

This scoping review was conducted in reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with a date range of 2014-19. Sources of unpublished literature included Open Grey, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, Clinical Trials.gov and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. After title and abstract checking, full-text retrieval and data extraction, studies were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for randomized controlled trials. Data were synthesized according to the main objectives. Key information was tabulated.

RESULTS

From the 86 included studies, key areas where nurses have led randomized controlled trials include patient or caregiver anxiety; postoperative pain relief; surgical site infection prevention: patient and caregiver knowledge; perioperative hypothermia prevention; postoperative nausea and vomiting; in addition to other diverse outcomes. Issues impacting upon quality (including poorly reported randomization), and gaps for future investigation (including a focus on vulnerable populations), are evident.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-led randomized controlled trials in the perioperative setting have focused on key areas of perioperative care. Yet, opportunities exist for nurses to lead experimental research in other perioperative priority areas and within different populations that have been neglected, such as in the population of older adults undergoing surgery.

Impact of carbon dioxide insufflation and water exchange on postcolonoscopy outcomes in patients receiving on-demand sedation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Water exchange (WE) is the least painful insertion method during colonoscopy. Its impact on postcolonoscopy discomfort has not been well-described. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation consistently reduced postcolonoscopy discomfort. We compared postcolonoscopy outcomes of various combinations of insertion and withdrawal techniques (insertion-withdrawal modality): WE-CO₂, WE-air insufflation (WE-AI), and CO₂-CO₂.

METHODS

A total of 240 patients undergoing on-demand sedation diagnostic colonoscopy were randomized to WE-CO₂ (n = 79), WE-AI (n = 80), CO₂-CO₂ (n = 81), with postprocedural data collected up to 24 hours. The primary outcome was postcolonoscopy bloating. Other postcolonoscopy outcomes included pain scores, flatus and incontinence episodes, toilet use, interference with normal activities, patient satisfaction, and patient willingness to repeat the procedure.

RESULTS

Demographic and procedural data were comparable. Compared with WE-AI, WE-CO₂ and CO₂-CO₂ resulted in significantly less bloating (all P < .0005) and lower pain scores (P values ranged from .008 to < .0005) up to 3 hours and fewer flatus episodes up to 6 hours (P values ranged from .003 to < .0005). WE-CO₂ resulted in less interference with same-day activities compared with WE-AI (P = .043). The differences in postprocedural outcomes were significant, but the magnitude was small. Patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure were high and comparable among groups. WE was the least painful insertion technique (P < .0005).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination WE-CO₂ appears to be the optimal choice to decrease pain during the examination and to reduce bloating and other undesired procedural outcomes afterward. If a CO₂ insufflator is already available, it seems advisable to adopt the combination WE-CO₂. In the absence of a CO₂ insufflator, the cost effectiveness of the addition of withdrawal CO₂ to WE in diagnostic and nondiagnostic settings needs to be critically assessed. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02409979.).