COLONOSCOPY: RANDOMIZED COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INSUFFLATION WITH CARBON DIOXIDE VERSUS AIR

Implementation of the Aldrete score reduces recovery time after non-anesthesiologist-administered procedural sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background and study aims  Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) by trained non-anesthesiologist physicians and/or nurses is often performed during endoscopic procedures. Discharge from the recovery area after monitored observation is frequently based on fixed time parameters or subjective clinical assessment. In this study, the effect of implementation of the Aldrete score on recovery time after procedural sedation was analyzed in a real-life setting. Patients and methods  A prospective observational study of patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia during gastroscopy, colonoscopy or endoscopic ultrasound was performed. All procedures were randomly included to represent a real-life situation with different endoscopists, recovery nurses, endoscopy systems and indications. After a first observation period, all endoscopy nurses were trained to implement the Aldrete score when discharging patients, followed by a second observation period. Results  During the first observation period, the average time spent in the recovery area was 59 ± 22 minutes after procedural sedation. After implementation of the Aldrete score, the recovery time decreased significantly to 47 ± 25 minutes ( P  < 0.01) with identical doses of procedural sedation and analgesia. The decrease in time was between 19 % and 35 % for the different endoscopic procedures. Conclusions  Implementation of the Aldrete score after procedural sedation and analgesia significantly reduces the time spent in the recovery area. The score can be used to safely implement a discharge policy that provides more efficient and standardized management for an endoscopy service.

Key factors for improving adenoma detection rate

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a fundamental tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Nevertheless, one-fourth of colorectal neoplasms are still missed during colonoscopy, potentially being the main reason for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is currently known as the best quality indicator correlating with PCCRC incidence.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a literature review in order to summarize evidences investigating key factors affecting ADR: endoscopists education and training, patient management, endoscopic techniques, improved navigation (exposition defect), and enhanced lesions recognition (vision defect) were considered.

EXPERT OPINION

'Traditional' factors, such as split dose bowel preparation, adequate withdrawal time, and right colon second view, held a significant impact on ADR. Several devices and technologies have been developed to promote high-quality colonoscopy, however artificial intelligence may be considered the most promising tool for ADR improvement, provided that endoscopists education and recording are guaranteed.

VOLUMETRIC CAPNOGRAPHY FOR RESPIRATORY MONITORING OF PATIENTS DURING ROUTINE COLONOSCOPY WITH ROOM-AIR AND CARBON DIOXIDE INSUFFLATION

BACKGROUND

Capnography and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation during gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation are associated with safety and comfort improvements, respectively. Capnography can provide early detection of apnea and hypoxemia, whereas CO2 insufflation causes lower periprocedural discomfort. This is the first study to report the application of volumetric capnography in colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the use of volumetric capnography with room air (RA) and CO2 insufflation during routine colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, 101 patients who underwent routine colonoscopy under sedation with volumetric capnography monitoring were included. Insufflation with RA was used to distend the intestinal lumen in group 1 (n=51), while group 2 (n=50) used CO2 insufflation. The primary endpoints were episodes of hypoxia, alveolar hypoventilation, and end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2). The secondary endpoints were tidal volume per minute, consumption of sedation medications, and post-procedure pain using the Gloucester modified pain scale.

RESULTS

The number of episodes of hypoxia (SpO2<90%) was similar between the groups: four episodes in Group 1 and two episodes in Group 2. The duration of hypoxia was significantly longer in group 2 (P=0.02). Hypoalveolar ventilation (EtCO2) occurred more frequently in Group 2 than in Group 1 (27 vs 18 episodes, P=0.05). Regarding EtCO2, Group 2 showed higher values in cecal evaluation (28.94±4.68 mmHg vs 26.65±6.12 mmHg, P=0.04). Regarding tidal volume per minute, Group 2 had significantly lower values at the cecal interval compared to Group 1 (2027.53±2818.89 vs 970.88±1840.25 L/min, P=0.009). No episodes of hypercapnia (EtCO2 > 60 mmHg) occurred during the study. There was no difference in the consumption of sedation medications between the groups. Immediately after colonoscopy, Group 2 reported significantly less pain than Group 1 (P=0.05).

CONCLUSION

In our study, volumetric capnography during colonoscopy was feasible and effective for monitoring ventilatory parameters and detecting respiratory complications. CO2 insufflation was safe and associated with less pain immediately after colonoscopy.

Effect of carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation on post-colonoscopic pain: A prospective, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Room air (RA) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are widely used to insufflate the colon to examine the mucosa in colonoscopy. Pain, discomfort, and bloating can be seen during and after colonoscopy secondary to bowel distention. This study aimed to investigate the effect of CO2 on post-procedure pain sensation (PPPS) in comparison with RA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to the RA and CO2 insufflation groups in a 1:1 ratio. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to measure the pain before and after the colonoscopy. VAS score of 0 was accepted as the absence of pain and above 0 was accepted as the presence of pain. The primary outcome was to investigate the effect of CO2 insufflation on PPPS. Secondary outcomes were to investigate the other contributing factors affecting PPPS and the effect of CO2 on PPPS in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were enrolled in the study. No significant difference in PPPS was seen between the 2 groups at any point in time after the colonoscopy. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in pain sensation between the CO2 and RA groups in patients with IBD. When we investigated the other contributing factors to pain sensation, body-mass index (BMI) was found to be significant at 30 minutes and BMI and colonoscopy time were found to be significant at 6 hours afterwards.

CONCLUSION

We found no favorable effect of CO2 insufflation on PPPS in colonoscopy, including in patients with IBD.

NEW BOWEL PREPARATION TECHNIQUE FOR COLONOSCOPY: CLINICAL TRIAL COMPARING AQUANET AND MANNITOL

Background:

Fifty-five percent of Americans aged 50-65 are submitted to colonoscopy. For over 65-year, this number increases to 64%. In Brazil, it is forecast that the population submitted to colonoscopy will grow, even though inadequate preparation is still a major problem.

Aim:

To analyze the quality of a new intestinal preparation technique, Aquanet EC-2000^®, compared to oral Mannitol solution.

Methods:

This prospective longitudinal study enrolled 200 patients with indication for colonoscopy. The sample was randomly allocated to two groups of 100; one group received Aquanet EC-2000^® to prepare for colonoscopy and the other Mannitol solution. The Boston scale was used to analyze the results.

Results:

As expected both preparations produced similar results with the bowel cleansing of the different regions of the colon being classified as Boston scale 3 (excellent) in most patients (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

The results of bowel preparation using Aquanet EC-2000^® were similar to using Mannitol solution.