Meta-analysis: the use of carbon dioxide insufflation vs. room air insufflation for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Mishaps with EUS-guided lumen-apposing metal stents in therapeutic pancreatic EUS: Management and prevention

EUS-guided interventions have become widely accepted therapeutic management options for drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections. Apart from endosonographic skills, EUS interventions require knowledge of the endoscopic stenting techniques and familiarity with the available stents and deployment systems. Although generally safe and effective, technical failure of correct stent positioning or serious adverse events can occur, even in experts' hands. In this article, we address common and rare adverse events in transmural EUS-guided stenting, ways to prevent them, and management options when they occur. Knowing the risks of what can go wrong combined with clinical expertise, high levels of technical skills, and adequate training allows for the safe performance of EUS-guided drainage procedures. Discussing the procedural risks and their likelihood with the patient is a fundamental part of the consenting process.

Acupuncture to Improve Patient Discomfort During Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims

Severe discomfort during an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is often a stressful experience for patients undergoing the procedure. An increasing number of studies have shown that acupuncture may reduce discomfort during UGE. A systematic review in 2004 investigated the effect of acupuncture for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but these data have not been recently reviewed. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the current evidence and provide up-to-date knowledge for clinical decision-making.

Methods

Nine databases were searched from inception to June 2021. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The outcome data were synthesized where necessary, and risks of bias of included studies were assessed using RevMan V.5.3.

Results

Twenty-three eligible RCTs with 3,349 patients were identified. It was found that acupuncture plus topical pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine hydrochloride (TPALH) resulted in greater improvements regarding visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the incidence of nausea and vomiting (INV) when compared with TPALH alone. These results were consistent among studies of manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture, auricular-plaster, superficial needle (SFN) and acupressure. In the meta-analysis, SFN plus TPALH showed significant improvement of VAS scores compared to sham SFN plus TPALH (MD -1.11, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.70, P < 0.00001). Most of included studies did not report any side effects in their findings, and were of medium-to-high risk of bias.

Conclusion

Acupuncture, as adjunctive therapy to TPA, may result in less patient discomfort than TPA alone. Findings from this review should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity identified. There is low-quality evidence supporting the use of acupuncture over sham. More rigorously designed RCTs are needed to inform clinical decision-making.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO [CRD42014008966].

Suspected cerebrovascular air embolism during endoscopic esophageal varices ligation under sedation with fatal outcome: A case report

BACKGROUND

Air embolism is a very rare, yet serious and potentially fatal complication of digestive endoscopic treatment. Air embolism is the result of air directly entering the arteries or veins. However, to recognize neurological dysfunction under sedation can be difficult. Therefore, it is extremely important to identify high-risk groups and take preventive measures.

CASE SUMMARY

Herein, we report a 74-year-old female patient with esophageal varices who suffered from consciousness disturbance after the third endoscopic ligation of esophageal varices under sedation. Combined with the patient’s imaging examination results and medical history, we highly suspected that the patient had developed paradoxical cerebral air embolism during endoscopic ligation. We learned that the patient died at a later follow-up. In order to be able to identify and prevent the occurrence of air embolism early, we summarize and analyze the risk factors, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, prevention and treatment options of gastrointestinal endoscopy complicated by cerebral air embolism.

CONCLUSION

Electroencephalographic monitoring helps to recognize the occurrence of air embolism in time and increase the patient's chance of survival.

Cerebral Air Embolism After Gastrointestinal Procedure: A Case Report and Literature Review

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is one of the forefronts of minimally invasive modalities with excellent safety records and tremendous capability but despite its accolades and functions, there are still very rare complications including air embolism. It is a life-threatening condition that could lead to a significant increase in morbidity and mortality. However, there are limited data for incidence of air embolism in association with gastrointestinal endoscopy. Diagnosis of air embolism after or during gastrointestinal endoscopy might be a difficult task due to overlapping presentations with anesthesia effects on the cardiopulmonary and the neurological systems, as a result, there should be increased awareness allowing clinicians to quickly rule out air embolism in patient with altered mental status or cardiopulmonary changes after or during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Herein, we report a unique case of cerebral air embolism after EGD in a 79-year-old female patient. In addition, we also performed a systematic review of cases based on PRISMA guideline, with the aim to investigate the demographics and clinical outcomes associated with this complication. This systematic review of cases hopes to increase the awareness about this rare entity.

Endoscopic Insufflation–Induced Gastric Barotrauma during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: A Report of Three Patients and Review of Literature

Background We report three patients with endoscopic insufflation–induced gastric barotrauma (EIGB) during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). A definition and classification of EIGB is proposed.

Materials and Methods Records of patients undergoing UGIE over 7 years (April 2013–March 2020) were reviewed. Patients who developed new onset of bleeding or petechial spots in proximal stomach, in an area previously documented to be normal during the same endoscopic procedure, were studied.

Results New onset of bleeding or petechial spots in proximal stomach occurred in 3/286 (0.1%) patients undergoing PEG and in none of the 19,323 other UGIE procedures during the study period. All patients were men with median age 76 years (range 68–80 years), with no coagulopathy. Aspirin and apixaban were discontinued 1 week and 3 days prior to the procedure. Fresh blood was noted in the stomach at a median of 275 seconds (range 130–340) seconds after commencement of endoscopy. At retroflexion, multiple linear mucosal breaks of up to 3 cm, with oozing of blood, were noted in the proximal stomach along the lesser curvature, close to the gastroesophageal junction in two patients. In the third patient, multiple petechial spots were noticed in the fundus. The plan for PEG was abandoned and the stomach deflated by endoscopic suction. There was no subsequent hematemesis, melena, or drop in hemoglobin. One week later, repeat UGIE in the first two patients revealed multiple healing linear ulcers of 1 to 3 cm in the lesser curvature and PEG was performed.

Conclusion Overinsufflation over a short duration during UGIE may lead to EIGB. Early detection is key and in the absence gastric perforation, patients can be managed conservatively.

When in Trouble Think of the Bubble: Paradoxical Cerebral Arterial Gas Embolism after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Air embolism (a result of direct communication with the vasculature and an external pressure gradient from the gastrointestinal or the biliary tract), although rare, is a potentially devastating adverse event seen in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures. Whether venous, arterial, or paradoxical, the clinical presentation ranges from asymptomatic patients to cardiorespiratory arrest. This is of particular importance because it makes the diagnosis of air embolism even more difficult in an already sedated patient. Since early recognition increases the chances of patients' survival, endoscopists should be highly motivated and trained to recognize this complication as early as possible. With only 60 cases of air embolism reported (and even fewer related to paradoxical air embolism), we aimed to report a case of paradoxical cerebral air embolism in a patient undergoing ERCP due to a common bile duct stricture and to provide a mini-review of this clinical entity that can serve as a bedside quick reference guide for endoscopists worldwide.

Carbon Dioxide vs. Air Insufflation for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures has gained popularity in adults. However, its utility in pediatric patients is not known. The current review aimed to compare the efficacy of CO2 vs. air insufflation for GI endoscopic procedures in pediatric patients. Methods: The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched from the inception of databases to 15th August 2020. Results: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CO2 vs. air insufflation for GI endoscopic procedures in pediatric patients were eligible for inclusion. Five RCTs were identified. Pooled analysis of data from 226 patients in the CO2 group and 224 patients in the air group revealed that patients receiving CO2 insufflation were at a lower odds of experiencing postoperative pain as compared to those undergoing the procedure with air (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.87; I 2 = 62%; p = 0.02). Descriptive analysis indicated no difference in the two groups for abdominal distention after the procedure. Two trials reported elevated CO2 in the study group but without any pulmonary complications. Bloating was reported by two studies and both reported significantly less bloating in the CO2 group. Conclusion: Our study indicates that the incidence of pain may be reduced with the use of CO2 insufflation in pediatric GI endoscopies without a significant risk of adverse events. However, current evidence is from a limited number of trials and not strong to recommend a routine of CO2 in pediatric gastroenterology practice. Further high-quality RCTs are required to supplement current evidence.

Propofol versus midazolam with or without short-acting opioids for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in colonoscopy; however, its benefits over midazolam (± short-acting opioids) are not well quantified. The objective of this study was to compare safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes of propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids) in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library (to July 30, 2018) for randomized controlled trials of colonoscopies performed with propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids). We pooled odds ratios for cardiorespiratory outcomes using mixed-effects conditional logistic models. We pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for patient and endoscopist satisfaction and efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine studies of 1427 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in cardiorespiratory outcomes (hypotension, hypoxia, bradycardia) between sedative groups. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, with most patients reporting willingness to undergo a future colonoscopy with the same sedative regimen. In the meta-analysis, patients sedated with propofol had greater satisfaction than those sedated with midazolam (± short-acting opioids) (SMD, .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .30-.79); however, there was considerable heterogeneity. Procedure time was similar between groups (SMD, .15; 95% CI, .04-.27), but recovery time was shorter in the propofol group (SMD, .41; 95% CI, .08-.74). The median difference in recovery time was 3 minutes, 6 seconds shorter in patients sedated with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Both propofol and midazolam (± short-acting opioids) result in high patient satisfaction and appear to be safe for use in colonoscopy. The marginal benefits to propofol are small improvements in satisfaction and recovery time.

Efficacy and safety of water-exchange enteroscopy compared to carbon dioxide insufflation during enteroscopy

INTRODUCTION

carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation during enteroscopy reduces procedure time and subsequent symptoms and increases the insertion depth compared with room air. In colonoscopy, the water-exchange (WE) technique is associated with less pain compared with CO2 insufflation. The WE technique is not well studied in enteroscopy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of enteroscopy with WE and CO2.

METHODS

a prospective, comparative and observational study was performed of double balloon enteroscopies (DBE) that were randomized in two groups. The first group used WE while the second group used CO2 insufflation. The data collected was evaluated via univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression (variables with p ≤ 0.10 according to the univariate analysis).

RESULTS

forty-six DBE were included; 23 in each arm. The median age of cases was 63.5 years and 37% were female. There were no statistical differences between the groups with regard to the access route, findings, therapy and complications. Four patients (20%) in the CO2 group had adverse events (abdominal distension and pain) and one in the WE group (nausea), which was not statistically significant. The median insertion depth was greater in the CO2 group; 260 cm vs 160 cm (p = 0.048). Multiple logistic regression showed a statistically significant difference in the insertion depth using CO2 insufflation (OR 1.009, 1.001-1.017; p = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

DBE with a CO2 insufflation technique and WE are safe with a greater insertion depth with CO2.

A meta-analysis of carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation on patient comfort and key performance indicators at colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) has been used as an alternative to air insufflation at endoscopy with good results; however, uptake of the technique has been poor, possibly due to perceived lack of outcome equivalency. This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of CO₂ versus air in reducing pain post-colonoscopy and furthermore examines other key performance indicators (KPIs) such as sedative use, procedure times and polyp detection rates.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized studies from 2004 to 2019, reporting outcomes for patients undergoing colonoscopy with air or CO₂ insufflation, who reported pain on a numerical or visual analogue scale (VAS). Results were reported as mean differences (MD) or pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Of 3586 citations, 23 studies comprising 3217 patients were analysed. Patients undergoing colonoscopy with air insufflation had 30% higher intraprocedural pain scores than those receiving CO₂ (VAS 3.4 versus 2.6, MD -0.7, 95% CI - 1.4-0.0, p = 0.05), with a sustained beneficial effect amongst those in the CO₂ group at 30 min, 1-2-h and 6-h post procedure (MD - 0.8, - 0.6 and - 0.2, respectively, p < 0.001 for all), as well as less distension, bloating and flatulence (p < 0.01 for all). There were no differences between the two groups in KPIs such as the sedation required, procedure time, caecal intubation or polyp detection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

CO₂ insufflation improves patient comfort without compromising colonoscopic performance.

Practice recommendations for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy

Objective

Although sedation improves patient experience during colonoscopy, there is great jurisdictional variability in sedative practices. The objective of this study was to develop practice recommendations for the use of moderate and deep sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy to facilitate standardisation of practice.

Design

We recruited 32 multidisciplinary panellists to participate in a modified Delphi process to establish consensus-based recommendations for the use of sedation in colonoscopy. Panel members participated in a values assessment survey followed by two rounds of anonymous online voting on preliminary practice recommendations. An inperson meeting was held between voting rounds to facilitate consensus-building. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement/disagreement with recommendation statements; >80% agreement/disagreement was considered indicative of strong consensus.

Results

Twenty-nine panellists participated in the values assessment survey. Panellists ranked all factors presented as important to the development of practice recommendations. The factor considered most important was patient safety. Patient satisfaction, procedural efficiency, and cost were considered less important. Strong consensus was achieved for all nine practice recommendations presented to the panel. These recommendations included that all endoscopists be able to perform colonoscopy with moderate sedation, that an endoscopist and a single trained nurse are sufficient for performing colonoscopy with moderate sedation, and that anaesthesia-provided deep sedation be used for select patients.

Conclusion

The recommendations presented in this study were agreed on by a multidisciplinary group and provide guidance for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy. Standardised sedation practices will promote safe, effective, and efficient colonoscopy for all patients.

Bowel Preparation With Polyethylene Glycol 3350 or Fasting Only Before Peroral Single-balloon Enteroscopy: A Randomized European Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND

Although bowel preparation before colonoscopy and capsule endoscopy is widely evaluated and usually follows established guidelines, a standard preparation regime for peroral small bowel enteroscopy is yet to be defined.The aim of the present study was to compare small bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and "fasting only" (FO) before peroral single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE).

STUDY

We compared small bowel preparation with PEG versus "FO" for peroral SBE in a randomized European multicenter trial. Patients' and procedural characteristics were documented and carefully analyzed. Primary endpoint was the oral intubation depth of the small bowel. A modified Boston preparation scale was used to assess bowel cleansing as a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

In total, 43 patients were enrolled in this study (FO group: n=25; PEG group: n=18). In both groups, patients' characteristics were comparable. The indications for oral enteroscopy were equally distributed in both groups (P=0.894). The oral intubation depth was significantly higher in the PEG versus the FO group (261±87 vs. 203±66 cm; P=0.019; mean±SD), while the quality of bowel preparation was equally sufficient in both groups [complete visualization of the mucosa (Boston preparation scale) 83% versus 76% (P=1.000)].

CONCLUSIONS

Small bowel preparation with PEG for SBE yields significantly deeper intubation as compared with "FO" preparation. As patient comfort and safety was similar in both groups, PEG preparation might be favored, especially if deep intubation of the small bowel is desired. For patients requiring visualization of the proximal jejunum, a FO preparation seems to be sufficient.

Management of spontaneous and iatrogenic perforations, leaks and fistulae of the upper gastrointestinal tract

Upper gastrointestinal perforations, leaks and fistulae are relatively common occurrences with a growing number of these complications occuring as a result of therapeutic advancement and adoption of newer and bolder endoscopic therapies. Historically, these were predominantly managed surgically; however, owing to high morbidity and mortality associated with surgical repair, endoscopic options are preferable. Over the past decade, vast expansion in the endoscopic armamentarium for the management of perforations, leaks and fistulae has led to endoscopic management now being the first-line treatment. Here, we will review the endoscopic modalities including through-the-scope clips, over-the-scope clips, stents, vacuum therapy, endoscopic sutures and sealants. In addition, we will discuss nonendoscopic approach to management including early recognition of perforations, ways to reduce septic complications and format algorithms to guide therapy for different scenarios. However, it is important to stress that there is a lack of high-quality randomised studies to clearly guide management of such complications, resulting in a wide variation of approaches in management by specialists. Each case requires some degree of individualisation due to the potential array of problems encountered and patient-specific co-morbidities. In the future, more robust studies are clearly required to better guide specialist management.

Sealing the hole: endoscopic management of acute gastrointestinal perforations

Acute perforations are one of the recognised complications of both diagnostic and therapeutic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. The incidence rate varies according to the type of procedure and the anatomical location within the GI tract. For decades, surgical treatment has been the standard of care, but endoscopic closure has become a more popular approach, due to feasibility and the reduction of the burden of surgery. Various devices are available now such as through-the-scope clips, over-the-scope clips, endoscopic suturing devices, stents, bands and omental patch. All have been tested in studies done on humans or animal models, with a reasonable overall technical and clinical success rate, proving efficiency and feasibility of endoscopic closure. The choice of which device to use depends on the site and the size of the perforation. It also depends on availability of thee device and the endoscopist's experience. A number of factors that could predict success of endoscopic closure or favour surgical treatment have been suggested in different studies. After successful endoscopic closure, patients are usually kept nil by mouth and receive antibiotics for a duration that varied between different studies.

Patient-reported minor adverse events after colonoscopy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the incidence and nature of minor adverse events (MAEs) after colonoscopy, and response rates to questionnaires concerning MAEs in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed and Embase. Predictor variables were patient-reported MAEs after colonoscopy. The outcome was frequency and types of MAEs and the patients' response rate to questionnaires after colonoscopy. Quality assessment for potential risk of bias and level of evidence was evaluated using the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines.

RESULTS

Seven prospective cohorts were included with a pooled total of 6172 participants. Patients undergoing colonoscopy had a response rate to questionnaires ranging from 64% to 100%, with a mean of 81%. One-third of the patients experienced MAEs, most prominently in the first 1-2 weeks after colonoscopy, and less common at 30 days post colonoscopy. The most frequently reported MAEs were abdominal pain, bloating and abdominal discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, patients undergoing colonoscopy have a high response rate to questionnaires about MAEs. MAEs after colonoscopy are commonly seen. High age and score of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, female gender and duration of procedure seem to be associated with a higher risk of MAEs, whereas adequate sedation seems to decreases the risk. MAEs after colonoscopy seems to be underreported in the current literature and the existing evidence is based on inhomogeneous reports. In the current study, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. There is a need for larger scale studies addressing the MAEs patients experience in conjunction with a colonoscopy. Furthermore, the assessment of the MAEs should rely on questionnaires tested for validity, comprehensibility and reliability, to reflect the patient-reported experience of a colonoscopy as precise as possible.

Carbon dioxide versus room air for colonoscopy in deeply sedated pediatric patients: a randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims  Use of carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ) instead of room air (RA) during colonoscopy in adults revealed significantly less flatulence and abdominal pain in several studies. The objectives of this study were to investigate the effects of CO ₂ usage on post-interventional pain, abdominal discomfort, abdominal girth, pCO ₂ levels, and narcotic requirement in deeply sedated pediatric patients. Patients and methods  A total of 97 children and adolescents aged 4 years to 17 years undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to RA or CO ₂ in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Age-appropriate pain scales assessed abdominal pain as primary outcome. In addition, abdominal girth, abdominal bloating, transcutaneous pCO ₂ , narcotic requirement to achieve deeply sedation, and post-procedural analgesic demand was analyzed in 73 patients. Results  Overall, significantly fewer patients reported bloating in the CO ₂ group ( P  = 0.0012). However, we observed only a trend to lower post-interventional pain ( P  = 0.15) and a lower pain score. There was no significant difference in transcutaneous pCO ₂ level and no adverse events occurred. Although there was no difference in the dosage of propofol and midazolam, we observed a significant increased necessity for use of synthetic opioids in the RA group to achieve optimal examination conditions ( P  = 0.023). Conclusions  The benefits using CO ₂ in colonoscopy of deeply sedated children predominate. In particular, CO ₂ insufflation may allow a less painful post-interventional time and it significantly reduces abdominal bloating. Moreover, with CO ₂ , significantly less additional opioids were used. Thus, CO ₂ insufflation can be considered as safe in deeply sedated patients as there was no relevant pulmonary CO ₂ retention observed. (DRKS00013914).

Insufflation With Carbon Dioxide During Pediatric Colonoscopy for Control of Postprocedure Pain

GOALS

To determine if carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation in children would improve postprocedure pain following colonoscopy in children.

BACKGROUND

CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy has been found to reduce postcolonoscopy pain in the adult population, but limited data exist in pediatrics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective study with 40 pediatric patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy. Patients were enrolled continuously and were randomized to receive CO2 or air insufflation. Patients and colonoscopists were blinded to insufflation method. End tidal CO2 (EtCO2) was documented throughout the procedure. Abdominal pain was established preprocedure then at 1-, 6-, and 24-hour postprocedure. Subject demographics, indications, colonoscopists' year of training, time to cecum, adverse events, and final diagnoses were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were randomized to each group. Patients receiving air had a statistically significant increase in pain from baseline at 1- and 6-hours after colonoscopy (P=0.007 and 0.008). This was not seen in the CO2 group (P=0.740 and 0.289). There was an increase in postprocedure pain in the air group compared with CO2 group at the 1-hour mark (P=0.032). EtCO2 increased during the procedure, regardless of insufflation method, but no difference was seen between groups (P=0.822).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that higher levels of pain were reported by patients following air compared with those receiving CO2 insufflation. This is the first study to show CO2 is as safe as air, with no increase in EtCO2 between groups in the pediatric population. CO2 is an effective and safe modality and should be considered for pediatric colonoscopies.

Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

 To compare the insufflation of CO ₂ and ambient air in enteroscopy.

SEARCH SOURCES

 The investigators researched the electronic databases MedLine, Cochrane Library, Central, LILACS, BVS, Scopus and Cinahl. The grey search was conducted in the base of theses of the University of São Paulo, books of digestive endoscopy and references of selected articles and in previous systematic revisions.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

 The evaluation of eligibility was performed independently, in a non-blind manner, by two reviewers, firstly by title and abstract, followed by complete text. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by consensus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHOD

 Through the spreadsheet of data extraction, where one author extracted the data and a second author checked the extraction. Disagreements were resolved by debate between the two reviewers. The quality analysis of the studies was performed using the Jadad score. The software RevMan 5 version 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

 Four randomized clinical trials were identified, totaling 473 patients submitted to enteroscopy and comparing insufflation of CO ₂ and ambient air. There was no statistical difference in the intubation depth between the two groups. When CO ₂ insufflation was reduced, there was a significant difference in pain levels 1 hour after the procedure (95 % IC, -2.49 [-4.72, -0.26], P : 0.03, I ² : 20%) and 3 hours after the procedure (95% IC, -3.05 [-5.92, -0.18], P : 0.04, I ² : 0 %). There was a usage of lower propofol dosage in the CO ₂ insufflation group, with significant difference (95 % IC, -67.68 [-115.53, -19.84], P : 0.006, I ² : 0 %). There was no significant difference between the groups in relation to the use of pethidine and to the oxygen saturation.

LIMITATIONS

 Restricted number of randomized clinical trials and nonuniformity of data were limitations to the analysis of the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

 The use of CO ₂ as insufflation gas in enteroscopy reduces the pain levels 1 hour and 3 hours after the procedure, in addition to the reduction of the sedation (propofol) dosage used.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps can reduce post-procedure abdominal pain: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background

Studies of the use of CO₂ insufflation during endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps (LCPs) are lacking.

Objective

We evaluated the effect of CO₂ insufflation on pain after endoscopic resection of LCPs.

Methods

In a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT), 132 patients were randomly assigned to groups who underwent endoscopic resection with CO₂ insufflation (CO₂ group, n = 66) or air insufflation (air group, n = 66). The primary outcome was abdominal pain post-procedure (PP). The secondary outcomes were abdominal distension, rates of technical success, amounts of sedatives prescribed, use of analgesics, and adverse events.

Results

Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The mean abdominal pain score was 12.3 in the CO₂ group vs. 17.5 in the air group at 1 h PP (p  =  0.047). Also, the proportion of patients without pain was significantly higher in the CO₂ group at 1 h PP (p = 0.008). The pain score differed more in the endoscopic submucosal dissection group and long-time group. The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

The results of this RCT demonstrate the superiority of CO₂ insufflation for endoscopic resection of LCPs in terms of decreasing PP abdominal pain (KCT0001636).

Bayesian network meta-analysis: Efficacy of air insufflation, CO2 insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion in colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colonoscopy is an excellent screening tool for colorectal cancer. There are four colonoscopy techniques: air insufflation, CO₂ insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion. Some studies reported that the latter three methods are better than the criterion standard (air insufflation), whereas some studies did not. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the four colonoscopy techniques, a network meta-analysis was carried out.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials (RCT) published up to September 2017 from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. Studies referencing the comparison between at least two of air insufflation, CO₂ insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion were selected. Primary outcomes included pain score during insertion, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate, and secondary outcomes included cecal intubation time and cecal intubation rate. Mean differences or odds ratios and their corresponding 95% credible intervals were pooled with Bayesian modeling.

RESULTS

Forty RCT with 13 734 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis showed that air insufflation had the highest pain score (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]: 98.8%) and the lowest detection rate of adenoma (SUCRA: 21.3%) and polyp (SUCRA: 16.8%). Water exchange had the lowest pain score (SUCRA: 1.1%) and highest detection rate of adenoma (SUCRA: 96.0%) and polyp (SUCRA: 98.9%), although it led to the longest cecal intubation time (SUCRA: 86.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Air insufflation might be the most unsatisfactory colonoscopy. Meanwhile, water exchange might be the most efficient colonoscopy.

Endoscopic Bubble Trouble: Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Cerebral Gas Embolism During Upper Endoscopy

Gas embolism is a rare but potentially devastating complication of endoscopic procedures. We describe 3 cases of gas embolism which were associated with endoscopic procedures (esophagogastroduodenoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). We treated these at our hyperbaric medicine center with 3 different outcomes: complete resolution, death, and disability. We review the literature regarding this unusual complication of endoscopy and discuss the need for prompt identification and referral for hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Additional adjunctive therapies are also discussed.

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 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.).

CO2 insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation is increasingly used for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) owing to the faster absorption of CO₂ as compared to that of air. Studies comparing CO₂ insufflation and air insufflation have reported conflicting results.

Objectives

This meta-analysis is aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of use of CO₂ insufflation for ESD.

Methods

Clinical trials of CO₂ insufflation versus air insufflation for ESD were searched in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Results

Eleven studies which compared the use of CO₂ insufflation and air insufflation, with a combined study population of 1026 patients, were included in the meta-analysis (n = 506 for CO₂ insufflation; n = 522 for air insufflation). Abdominal pain and VAS scores at 6h and 24h post-procedure in the CO₂ insufflation group were significantly lower than those in the air insufflation group, but not at 1h and 3h after ESD. The percentage of patients who experienced pain 1h and 24h post-procedure was obviously decreased. Use of CO₂ insufflation was associated with lower VAS scores for abdominal distention at 1h after ESD, but not at 24h after ESD. However, no significant differences were observed with respect to postoperative transcutaneous partial pressure carbon dioxide (PtcCO₂), arterial blood carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO₂), oxygen saturation (SpO₂%), abdominal circumference, hospital stay, white blood cell (WBC) counts, C-Reactive protein (CRP) level, dosage of sedatives used, incidence of dysphagia and other complications.

Conclusion

Use of CO₂ insufflation for ESD was safe and effective with regard to abdominal discomfort, procedure time, and the residual gas volume. However, there appeared no significant differences with respect to other parameters namely, PtcCO₂, PaCO₂, SpO₂%, abdominal circumference, hospital stay, sedation dosage, complications, WBC, CRP, and dysphagia.

Carbon Dioxide versus Air Insufflation in Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with air insufflation is commonly used for the staging and treatment of early gastric carcinoma. However, carbon dioxide (CO₂) use has been shown to cause less post-procedural pain and fewer adverse events. The objective of this study was to compare the post-procedural pain and adverse events associated with CO₂ and air insufflation in ESD.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing the two approaches in ESD. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to analyze the data. The mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.

Results

Four RCTs with a total of 391 patients who underwent ESD were included in our meta-analysis. The difference in maximal post-procedural pain between the two groups was statistically significant (MD, -7.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.6 – -1.21; p=0.020). However, no significant differences were found in the length of procedure, end-tidal CO₂, rate of perforation, and postprocedural hemorrhage between the two groups. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly lower in the CO₂ group (OR, 0.51; CI, 0.32–0.84; p=0.007).

Conclusions:

CO₂ insufflation in gastric ESD is associated with less post-operative pain and discomfort, and a lower risk of overall adverse events compared with air insufflation.

Current status of endoscopic balloon dilation for Crohn's disease

The therapeutic target in Crohn's disease (CD) has been raised to the achievement of mucosal healing. Although effective treatments that target cytokines and other molecules has been widely used for CD, intestinal strictures are still a major cause of surgery. Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) is known to be an effective and safe intervention for intestinal strictures in CD. Since frequent intestinal resection often results in short bowel syndrome and can decrease the quality of life, EBD can help avoid surgery. EBD with a conventional colonoscope for Crohn's strictures of the colon and ileo-colonic anastomosis has established efficacy and safety. In addition, EBD using balloon-assisted enteroscopy has recently been applied for small bowel Crohn's strictures. Although the evidence is not strong, EBD may become an alternative to surgery in small bowel strictures in CD. EBD and other new methods such as self-expanding stent implantation for Crohn's strictures may be useful and safe; however, it is important to address several issues regarding these interventions and to establish a protocol for combined therapies.

Efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A meta-analysis update

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is essential for visualising the biliary tree and pancreatic ducts, and carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation during ERCP is considered an alternative technique to air insufflation for relieving post-procedural abdominal discomfort (abdominal pain and distension). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of CO₂ insufflation on the remission of abdominal discomfort and the potential side effects by conducting a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The method recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was employed to conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CO₂ insufflation versus air insufflation during ERCP. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science and China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc) databases were comprehensively searched.

RESULTS

Nine high-quality RCTs were reviewed. The updated meta-analysis showed that the CO₂ groups achieved a lower abdominal pain score [1-hour (SMD: -1.44, 95% CI: -2.76, -0.15), 3-hour (SMD: -1.17, 95% CI: -2.18, -0.16) and 6-hour (SMD: -1.39, 95% CI: -2.68, -0.10)], a lower abdominal distension score [1-hour (SMD: -1.05, 95% CI: -1.73, -0.38), 3-hour (SMD: -0.63, 95% CI: -1.10, -0.16) and 6-hour (SMD: -0.54, 95% CI: -0.99, -0.08)] and a lower overall rate of complications (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.93). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding abdominal discomfort immediately after recovery or 24-hour post-procedure. There was no evidence to indicate higher pressure of CO₂ (pCO₂) values in the CO₂ groups during the procedure when the patients were under sedation anaesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to air insufflation, CO₂ insufflation is currently the preferred method for ERCP and decreases post-procedural abdominal pain and distension without significant side effects.

Carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Background and study aims Carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation has been suggested to be an ideal alternative to room air insufflation to reduce trapped air within the bowel lumen after balloon assisted enteroscopy (BAE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of utilizing CO₂ insufflation as compared to room air during BAE. Patients and methods The primary outcome is mean change in visual analog scale (VAS; 10 cm) at 1, 3, and 6 hours to assess pain. Secondary outcomes include insertion depth (anterograde or retrograde), adverse events, total enteroscopy rate, diagnostic yield, mean anesthetic dosage, and PaCO₂ at procedure completion. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until May 2015. Multiple independent extractions were performed, the process was executed as per the standards of the Cochrane collaboration. Results Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. VAS at 6 hours favored CO₂ over room air (MD 0.13; 95 % CI 0.01, 0.25; p = 0.03). Anterograde insertion depth (cm) was improved in the CO₂ group (MD, 58.2; 95 % CI 17.17, 99.23; p = 0.005), with an improvement in total enteroscopy rate in the CO₂ group (RR 1.91; 95 % CI 1.20, 3.06; p = 0.007). Mean dose of propofol (mg) favored CO₂ compared to air (MD, - 70.53; 95 % CI - 115.07, - 25.98; P = 0.002). There were no differences in adverse events in either group. Conclusions Despite the ability of CO₂ to improve insertion depth and decrease amount of anesthesia required, further randomized control trials are needed to determine the agent of choice for insufflation in balloon assisted enteroscopy.

Paediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines

This guideline refers to infants, children, and adolescents ages 0 to 18 years. The areas covered include indications for diagnostic and therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy and ileocolonoscopy; endoscopy for foreign body ingestion; corrosive ingestion and stricture/stenosis endoscopic management; upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; and endoscopic ultrasonography. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and endoscopy specific to inflammatory bowel disease has been dealt with in other guidelines and are therefore not mentioned in this guideline. Training and ongoing skill maintenance are to be dealt with in an imminent sister publication to this.

Does carbon dioxide insufflation impact adenoma detection rate? A single-center retrospective analysis

Background and study aims: Carbon dioxide (CO₂) has been associated with reduced post-procedural pain and improved patient satisfaction when compared to air insufflation (AI). The effect of CO₂ insufflation (CO₂I) on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. The aims of this study are to compare ADR in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy with AI vs. CO₂I and identify predictors of ADR. Patients and methods: Single-center retrospective cohort study of 2,107 patients undergoing screening colonoscopy at the University of Florida Hospital between November 2011 and June 2015. Patient demographics, procedural parameters, and histology results were retrospectively obtained from a prospectively maintained colonoscopy database. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify predictors of ADR. Results: A total of 2107 colonoscopies (644 with AI and 1463 with CO₂I) were analyzed. Overall ADR was 27.8 %. There was no significant difference in ADR between AI (27.6 %) vs. CO₂I (27.8 %) (P = 0.93). Method of insufflation (AI vs. CO₂I) was not significantly associated with ADR (OR 0.9; 95 % CI:0.7 - 1.2). Older age (OR: 1.02; 95 % CI: 1.001 - 1.03 per year increase), male gender (OR 1.48; 95 % CI: 1.17 - 1.87), and longer scope withdraw time (OR 1.13; 95 % CI: 1.1 - 1.16 per minute) were associated with a higher ADR. Fellow involvement was negatively associated with ADR (OR 0.60; 95 % CI: 0.47 - 0.77). Conclusion: ADR was similar between patients who underwent screening colonoscopy with AI vs. CO₂I. While CO₂I has been associated with improved patient comfort and post-procedural recovery time, there is no definitive evidence to suggest that this method of luminal distention enhances ADR.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

Complications of endoscopic resection techniques for upper GI tract lesions

Adverse events can occur during and after the endoscopic resection of upper gastrointestinal lesions. Their incidence can be minimized through the adoption of preventive measures and their final outcomes can be optimized through prompt identification and adequate treatment. In this evidence-based review we describe the risk factors for adverse events, preventive measures to avoid them and their management when they occur. Algorithms of action are also provided. Oesophageal strictures can be prevented with corticosteroids (either locally injected or systemically administered) and treated with endoscopic dilatation. Bleeding can be minimized through the adoption of prophylactic coagulation and novel preventive measures are emerging and being evaluated. Bleeding management includes coagulation therapy, clips and haemostatic powders. Perforations can nowadays be successfully treated endoscopically in the majority of the cases and conservative treatment is associated with favourable outcomes although optimal management is unclear.

The role of equipment in endoscopic complications

The role of the surrounding equipment in endoscopic complications has not been published widely. However, an adequate understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of such devices might be helpful to avoid unnecessary problems during endoscopy. This is an overview of the basic principles, benefits and possible harms of electrical power units, medical gases and vital sign monitoring equipment. The aim of this review is to summarize current knowledge about the approach to the electrosurgical unit settings; periprocedural precautions, minimizing the risk of interference between endoscopic equipment and other electrical devices; the appropriate selection of instruments regarding the electrosurgical outcome and the role of carbon dioxide, argon plasma coagulation, pulse oximetry and capnography.

Painless Colonoscopy: Available Techniques and Instruments

During colonoscopy, air insufflation to distend the lumen and facilitate careful inspection and scope insertion can induce pain and cause discomfort. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation can decrease abdominal pain and discomfort during and after colonoscopy. The advantage of CO₂ insufflation is the rapid absorption of the gas across the intestine. Another painless option is water-assisted colonoscopy. Two methods for water-assisted colonoscopy are available: water immersion and water exchange. In a recent direct comparison, the water exchange method was superior to water immersion, CO₂ insufflation, and air insufflation with respect to pain during colonoscopy, although it still had the disadvantage of being a time-consuming procedure. Cap-assisted colonoscopy is a simple technique involving the use of a small transparent cap attached to the tip of the scope. Three studies showed an advantage of this technique in terms of reduced patient discomfort compared with the conventional method. Three robotic colonoscopy systems (Endotics System [Era Endoscopy], NeoGuide [NeoGuide Systems Inc.], and Invendoscope [Invendo Medical]) have been introduced to evaluate pain reduction during colonoscopy, but none has been widely adopted and used in practice. In this review, clinical trials of several techniques and new devices for painless colonoscopy are described and summarized.

Colonoscopy Comfort: An Evidence-Based Practice Project

Decreased discomfort after colonoscopy is a high priority for patients. Typically, air is used to insufflate the bowel during colonoscopy, but emerging literature shows that carbon dioxide insufflation decreases postoperative discomfort and flatus. An evidence-based practice project was developed and implemented by a surgical department at a community hospital. The Director of Surgical Services brought the evidence to the staff, secured agreement from a physician champion, and the new process was quickly adopted. Patients experienced less discomfort and flatus postprocedure with carbon dioxide insufflation, and were able to be discharged expediently. These patient outcomes validated the literature and confirmed the success of the practice change.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy can significantly decrease post-interventional abdominal discomfort in deeply sedated patients: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

CO2 has been reported to be absorbed from the bowel more rapidly than air, resulting in a discomfort reduction after colonoscopy. Its role in deeply sedated patients is limited. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy in patients deeply sedated with propofol.

METHODS

A total of 125 continuous patients were randomly assigned to receive either CO2 (n = 63) or air (n = 62) insufflation during propofol-sedated colonoscopy. Postcolonoscopy abdominal pain, distention, and satisfaction were assessed at 1, 3, and 24 h after the procedure, and the proportions of pain-free and distention-free patients were compared. Residual bowel gas in the colon and small bowel was evaluated at 1 h after colonoscopy. End-tidal CO2 and O2 saturation was measured for safety analysis.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between the two groups regarding the postcolonoscopy abdominal pain, distention, and subjective satisfaction at 1 h (P < 0.001) and 3 h (P < 0.01) after the procedure. Patients' pain and distention at 1 and 3 h after the procedure were significantly lower in the CO2 group (P < 0.01). Residual bowel gas in the colon and small bowel was significantly less in the CO2 group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in end-tidal CO2 levels between two groups before, during, and after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with air, CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy reduced postcolonoscopy abdominal discomfort and improved patients' satisfaction. It was safe to use CO2 insufflation in deeply sedated colonoscopy.

Autonomic nervous responses in colorectal polypectomy: Randomized controlled trial comparing air and carbon dioxide insufflation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation devices are commonly used for endoscopic examination and treatment. In this prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT), we compared patient acceptance, cardiovascular tolerance,and autonomic nervous responses between patients receiving air insufflation and CO2 insufflation.

METHODS

We initially enrolled 170 patients and, of these, 158 patients in total were analyzed (air group, 83; CO2 group, 75). Autonomic nervous responses were evaluated by analysis of heart rate variability (HRV). Primary end point was superiority in the effects of CO2 insufflation on the autonomic nervous system by HRV analysis.

RESULTS

Visual analog scale disclosed significantly less abdominal pain and abdominal fullness with CO2. Percentage heart rate change rate at 1 h and 4 h after the procedure was also significantly lower in the CO2 group than in the air group (1 h after: P < 0.01, 4 h after: P < 0.05). Comparison based on age showed that % heart rate change was significantly lower in the younger CO2 patients (just after colonoscopy and 1 h after: P < 0.01, 4 h after: P < 0.05), but this difference was not apparent in an older group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first RCT showing that colorectal polypectomy using CO2 insufflation significantly decreases abdominal pain and abdominal fullness common in such patients with lowered stress to the autonomous nervous system. The effects using CO2 insufflation on the sympathetic nervous system also seemed to be more prominent among younger patients.

Advances in Pediatric Small Bowel Imaging

Technological advances for visualizing the small bowel have significantly grown over the past few decades. Balloon-assisted enteroscopy has come to the forefront of these innovations, and has been found to be safe and effective in children with small bowel ailments. The expanding body of research into balloon-assisted enteroscopy will continue to refine the current knowledge base of this technique, along with a growing assessment of the long-term benefits of such interventions.

Efficacy of carbon dioxide insufflation during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized, double-blind, controlled, prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is commonly performed under air insufflation and is often accompanied by abdominal discomfort. CO2 is absorbed more rapidly by the body than is air; however, the use of CO2 insufflation in ESD remains controversial. This randomized, double-blind, controlled, prospective study was designed to assess the efficacy of CO2 versus air insufflation in gastric ESD.

METHODS

Between May 2012 and August 2014, a total of 110 patients with gastric tumors were randomly assigned to the CO2 insufflation (CO2 group, n = 54) or air insufflation group (air group, n = 56). Abdominal pain after ESD was chronologically recorded via visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Secondary outcome measurements were adverse events, abdominal circumference, amount of sedatives prescribed, and use of analgesics.

RESULTS

Neither the baseline patient characteristics nor the mean procedural time differed between the groups. The VAS score for abdominal pain was 35.2 in the CO2 insufflation group versus 48.5 in the air insufflation group 1 hour after ESD (P = .026), 27.8 versus 42.5 three hours after ESD (P = .007), 18.4 versus 34.8 six hours after ESD (P = .001), and 9.2 versus 21.9 one day after ESD (P < .001). Changes in abdominal circumference, the amounts of sedative drugs taken, and the adverse events did not differ between the groups. However, the air insufflation group required more analgesics than did the CO2 insufflation group (CO2 group, 22.0% [11/50]; air group, 42.3% [22/52]; P = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

CO2 insufflation during gastric ESD significantly reduced abdominal pain and analgesic usage compared with air insufflation. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01579071.)

Endoscopic Treatment of Gastrointestinal Perforations, Leaks, and Fistulae

Gastrointestinal leaks and fistulae are common postoperative complications, whereas intestinal perforation more commonly complicates advanced endoscopic procedures. Although these complications have classically been managed surgically, there exists an ever-expanding role for endoscopic therapy and the involvement of advanced endoscopists as part of a multidisciplinary team including surgeons and interventional radiologists. This review will serve to highlight the innovative endoscopic interventions that provide an expanding range of viable endoscopic approaches to the management and therapy of gastrointestinal perforation, leaks, and fistulae.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during screening unsedated colonoscopy: a randomised clinical trial

One of the methods used to reduce pain and discomfort during colonoscopy is insufflation of carbon dioxide instead of air. However, the actual benefit of carbon dioxide insufflation is not unequivocally proven. The aim of the study was to evaluate the advantages of carbon dioxide insufflation during screening colonoscopy. A total of 200 patients undergoing screening colonoscopy between 2010 and 2011 were included in the prospective, randomized study carried out in a surgical referral center. Screening unsedated colonoscopy with either air or carbon dioxide insufflation was performed; patients were randomly assigned to air or carbon dioxide group by means of computer-generated randomization lists. All examinations were performed in an ambulatory setting with standard videocolonoscopes. The main outcomes analyzed were (a) duration of the entire procedure, (b) cecal intubation time, and (c) pain severity immediately, 15, and 60 min after the procedure. Group I included 59 women and 41 men and group II included 51 women and 49 men. The duration of the procedure was circa 10 min in both groups. Pain score values immediately and 15 min after the procedure were similar in both groups (P=0.624 and 0.305, respectively). A lower pain score was observed only after 60 min in patients insufflated with carbon dioxide (1.28 vs. 1.54, P=0.008). No pain reduction was observed in women and in obese patients (BMI>30). Carbon dioxide insufflation during unsedated screening colonoscopy does not decrease the duration of the procedure and appears to reduce pain intensity at 60 min after examination to an extent without clinical significance. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01461564.

Advances in balloon endoscopes

In September 2003, a double-balloon endoscope (DBE) composed of balloons attached to a scope and an overtube was released in Japan prior to becoming available in other parts of the world. The DBE was developed by Dr. Yamamoto (1), and 5 different types of scopes with different uses have already been marketed. In April 2007, a single-balloon small intestinal endoscope was released with a balloon attached only to the overtube as a subsequent model. This article presents a detailed account of the development of these scopes up to the present time.

Safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide insufflation during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and air insufflation during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

METHODS: This study involved 116 patients who underwent gastric ESD between January and December 2009. After eliminating 29 patients who fit the exclusion criteria, 87 patients, without known pulmonary dysfunction, were randomized into the CO₂ insufflation (n = 36) or air insufflation (n = 51) groups. Standard ESD was performed with a CO₂ regulation unit (constant rate of 1.4 L/min) used for patients undergoing CO₂ insufflation. Patients received diazepam for conscious sedation and pentazocine for analgesia. Transcutaneous CO₂ tension (PtcCO₂) was recorded 15 min before, during, and after ESD with insufflation. PtcCO₂, the correlation between PtcCO₂ and procedure time, and ESD-related complications were compared between the two groups. Arterial blood gases were analyzed after ESD in the first 30 patients (12 with CO₂ and 18 with air insufflation) to assess the correlation between arterial blood CO₂ partial pressure (PaCO₂) and PtcCO₂.

RESULTS: There were no differences in respiratory functions, median sedative doses, or median procedure times between the groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference in post-ESD blood gas parameters, including PaCO₂, between the CO₂ and air groups (44.6 mmHg vs 45 mmHg). Both groups demonstrated median pH values of 7.36, and none of the patients exhibited acidemia. No significant differences were observed between the CO₂ and air groups with respect to baseline PtcCO₂ (39 mmHg vs 40 mmHg), peak PtcCO₂ during ESD (52 mmHg vs 51 mmHg), or median PtcCO₂ after ESD (50 mmHg vs 50 mmHg). There was a strong correlation between PaCO₂ and PtcCO₂ (r = 0.66; P < 0.001). The incidence of Mallory-Weiss tears was significantly lower with CO₂ insufflation than with air insufflation (0% vs 15.6%, P = 0.013). CO₂ insufflation did not cause any adverse events, such as CO₂ narcosis or gas embolisms.

CONCLUSION: CO₂ insufflation during gastric ESD results in similar blood gas levels as air insufflation, and also reduces the incidence of Mallory-Weiss tears.

Effects of carbon dioxide insufflation in balloon-assisted enteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The efficacy of CO2 insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CO2 insufflation was compared with air insufflation in balloon-assisted enteroscopy.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database were searched to identify RCTs eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Four RCTs (461 patients) were identified. Compared with air insufflation, CO2 insufflation significantly increased intubation depth of oral enteroscopy (WMD: 55.2, 95% CI: 10.77-99.65, p = 0.015). However, there was significant heterogeneity. The intubation depth of anal enteroscopy showed no significant difference between the CO2 group and the air group. CO2 insufflation significantly reduced abdominal pain compared with air insufflation (WMD: -2.463, 95% CI: -4.452 to -0.474, p = 0.015), without significant heterogeneity. The PaCO2 or end-tidal CO2 level showed no significant difference between the CO2 group and air group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with air insufflation, CO2 insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy caused less post-procedural pain without CO2 retention.

Efficacy of carbon dioxide versus air insufflation according to different sedation protocols during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) tends to require considerable air insufflation, which results in abdominal pain or distension. We investigated the efficacy of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) compared with air insufflation when using two different sedation protocols in therapeutic ERCP.

METHODS

Patients who required therapeutic ERCP were randomly assigned to four groups based on preliminary data: air insufflation with balanced propofol sedation (BPS), air with propofol + opioid sedation (PS), CO2 with BPS, and CO2 with PS. Post-ERCP abdominal pain, distension and nausea by the 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS), and gas volume score (GVS) by the four-point ordinal scale were measured according to the time interval. Overall satisfaction with sedation, sedation efficacy, and complications were also measured.

RESULTS

The CO2 with BPS group showed lowest mean VAS score for abdominal pain (immediately after recovery, P = 0.002; and 3 h post-ERCP, P = 0.047) and distension (immediately after recovery, P = 0.018; 3 h post-ERCP, P < 0.01; and 24 h post-ERCP, P = 0.042). Overall satisfaction with sedation was greater in the CO2 with BPS group (P = 0.005). Mean GVS at 2 h and 12 h post-ERCP was significantly lower in the CO2 with BPS group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in procedure or sedation-related complications.

CONCLUSION

CO2 with BPS showed the lowest VAS score for early abdominal pain, distension and GVS, and had a higher score for overall satisfaction for sedation.

Deep enteroscopy - indications, diagnostic yield and complications

Since its introduction in 2001 capsule endoscopy opened up the small bowel for diagnostic approaches followed by double balloon enteroscopy which enabled the endoscopic community to perform therapeutic interventions in the whole small intestine. In this review the scientific developments related to indications, diagnostic yield and complications of the last years between the competing devices double ballon enteroscopy, single balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy are illustrated.

Carbon dioxide insufflation vs conventional air insufflation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials

AIM

Conventional air insufflation (AI) may cause prolonged abdominal bloating, excessive abdominal pain and discomfort during colonoscopy. Carbon dioxide may be an acceptable alternative to avoid these complications. The object of this study was to evaluate systematically the effectiveness of carbon dioxide insufflation (CI) for colonoscopy compared with AI.

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of CI with that of AI during colonoscopy were retrieved from medical electronic databases and combined analysis was performed using the RevMan statistical package. The combined outcome of dichotomous and continuous variables was expressed as an odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs comprising 3607 patients were included in the study. There was statistically significant heterogeneity among included studies. CI showed a significant trend towards reduced procedural pain [SMD -1.34; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -2.23 to -0.45; z = 2.96; P < 0.003] and also postprocedural pain at 1 h (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38; z = 2.97; P < 0.003), 6 and 24 h (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.85; z = 2.44; P < 0.01). CI was associated with faster caecal intubation (SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.02; z = 2.23; P < 0.03) but the caecal intubation rate was similar (P = 0.59) in both colonic insufflation techniques .

CONCLUSION

CI seems to have clinical advantages over AI for colonoscopy with regard to pain during and after the procedure.