AIM:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of CO2 insufflation compared with air insufflation in the endoscopic submucosal excavation(ESE) of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.METHODS:Sixty patients were randomized to unde...AIM:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of CO2 insufflation compared with air insufflation in the endoscopic submucosal excavation(ESE) of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.METHODS:Sixty patients were randomized to undergo endoscopic submucosal excavation,with the CO2 group(n = 30) and the air group(n = 30) undergoingCO2 insufflation and air insufflation in the ESE,respectively.The end-tidal CO2 level(pETCO2) was observed at 4 time points:at the beginning of ESE,at total removal of the tumors,at completed wound management,and 10 min after ESE.Additionally,the patients' experience of pain at 1,3,6 and 24 h after the examination was registered using a visual analog scale(VAS).RESULTS:Both the CO2 group and air group were similar in mean age,sex,body mass index(all P > 0.05).There were no significant differences in PetCO2 values before and after the procedure(P > 0.05).However,the pain scores after the ESE at different time points in the CO2 group decreased significantly compared with the air group(1 h:21.2 ± 3.4 vs 61.5 ± 1.7;3 h:8.5 ± 0.7 vs 42.9 ± 1.3;6 h:4.4 ± 1.6 vs 27.6 ± 1.2;24 h:2.3 ± 0.4 vs 21.4 ± 0.7,P < 0.05).Meanwhile,the percentage of VAS scores of 0 in the CO2 group after 1,3,6 and 24 h was significantly higher than that in the air group(60.7 ± 1.4 vs 18.9 ± 1.5,81.5 ± 2.3 vs 20.6 ± 1.2,89.2 ± 0.7 vs 36.8 ± 0.9,91.3 ± 0.8 vs 63.8 ± 1.3,respectively,P < 0.05).Moreover,the condition of the CO2 group was better than that of the air group with respect to anal exsufflation.CONCLUSION:Insufflation of CO2 in the ESE of gastrointestinal stromal tumors will not cause CO2 retention and it may significantly reduce the level of pain,thus it is safe and effective.展开更多
AIM:To compare the impact of carbon dioxide(CO2) and air insufflation on patient tolerance/safety in deeply sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy.METHODS:Patients referred for colonoscopy were randomized to receive ...AIM:To compare the impact of carbon dioxide(CO2) and air insufflation on patient tolerance/safety in deeply sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy.METHODS:Patients referred for colonoscopy were randomized to receive either CO2 or air insufflation during the procedure.Both the colonoscopist and patient were blinded to the type of gas used.During the procedure,insertion and withdrawal times,caecal intubationrates,total sedation given and capnography readings were recorded.The level of sedation and magnitude of patient discomfort during the procedure was assessed by a nurse using a visual analogue scale(VAS)(0-3).Patients then graded their level of discomfort and abdominal bloating using a similar VAS.Complications during and after the procedure were recorded.RESULTS:A total of 142 patients were randomized with 72 in the air arm and 70 in the CO2 arm.Mean age between the two study groups were similar.Insertion time to the caecum was quicker in the CO2 group at 7.3 min vs 9.9 min with air(P = 0.0083).The average withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups.Caecal intubation rates were 94.4% and 100% in the air and CO2 groups respectively(P = 0.012).The level of discomfort assessed by the nurse was 0.69(air) and 0.39(CO2)(P = 0.0155) and by the patient 0.82(air) and 0.46(CO2)(P = 0.0228).The level of abdominal bloating was 0.97(air) and 0.36(CO2)(P = 0.001).Capnography readings trended to be higher in the CO2 group at the commencement,caecal intubation,and conclusion of the procedure,even though this was not significantly different when compared to readings obtained during air insufflation.There were no complications in both arms.CONCLUSION:CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy is more efficacious than air,allowing quicker and better cecal intubation rates.Abdominal discomfort and bloating were significantly less with CO2 insufflation.展开更多
基金Supported by Grants from Project of Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality,No. 10441901702Nano-specific Project of Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality,No. 11nm0503700Shang-hai Key Laboratory of Pediatric Digestion and Nutrition,No. 11DZ2260500
文摘AIM:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of CO2 insufflation compared with air insufflation in the endoscopic submucosal excavation(ESE) of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.METHODS:Sixty patients were randomized to undergo endoscopic submucosal excavation,with the CO2 group(n = 30) and the air group(n = 30) undergoingCO2 insufflation and air insufflation in the ESE,respectively.The end-tidal CO2 level(pETCO2) was observed at 4 time points:at the beginning of ESE,at total removal of the tumors,at completed wound management,and 10 min after ESE.Additionally,the patients' experience of pain at 1,3,6 and 24 h after the examination was registered using a visual analog scale(VAS).RESULTS:Both the CO2 group and air group were similar in mean age,sex,body mass index(all P > 0.05).There were no significant differences in PetCO2 values before and after the procedure(P > 0.05).However,the pain scores after the ESE at different time points in the CO2 group decreased significantly compared with the air group(1 h:21.2 ± 3.4 vs 61.5 ± 1.7;3 h:8.5 ± 0.7 vs 42.9 ± 1.3;6 h:4.4 ± 1.6 vs 27.6 ± 1.2;24 h:2.3 ± 0.4 vs 21.4 ± 0.7,P < 0.05).Meanwhile,the percentage of VAS scores of 0 in the CO2 group after 1,3,6 and 24 h was significantly higher than that in the air group(60.7 ± 1.4 vs 18.9 ± 1.5,81.5 ± 2.3 vs 20.6 ± 1.2,89.2 ± 0.7 vs 36.8 ± 0.9,91.3 ± 0.8 vs 63.8 ± 1.3,respectively,P < 0.05).Moreover,the condition of the CO2 group was better than that of the air group with respect to anal exsufflation.CONCLUSION:Insufflation of CO2 in the ESE of gastrointestinal stromal tumors will not cause CO2 retention and it may significantly reduce the level of pain,thus it is safe and effective.
文摘AIM:To compare the impact of carbon dioxide(CO2) and air insufflation on patient tolerance/safety in deeply sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy.METHODS:Patients referred for colonoscopy were randomized to receive either CO2 or air insufflation during the procedure.Both the colonoscopist and patient were blinded to the type of gas used.During the procedure,insertion and withdrawal times,caecal intubationrates,total sedation given and capnography readings were recorded.The level of sedation and magnitude of patient discomfort during the procedure was assessed by a nurse using a visual analogue scale(VAS)(0-3).Patients then graded their level of discomfort and abdominal bloating using a similar VAS.Complications during and after the procedure were recorded.RESULTS:A total of 142 patients were randomized with 72 in the air arm and 70 in the CO2 arm.Mean age between the two study groups were similar.Insertion time to the caecum was quicker in the CO2 group at 7.3 min vs 9.9 min with air(P = 0.0083).The average withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups.Caecal intubation rates were 94.4% and 100% in the air and CO2 groups respectively(P = 0.012).The level of discomfort assessed by the nurse was 0.69(air) and 0.39(CO2)(P = 0.0155) and by the patient 0.82(air) and 0.46(CO2)(P = 0.0228).The level of abdominal bloating was 0.97(air) and 0.36(CO2)(P = 0.001).Capnography readings trended to be higher in the CO2 group at the commencement,caecal intubation,and conclusion of the procedure,even though this was not significantly different when compared to readings obtained during air insufflation.There were no complications in both arms.CONCLUSION:CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy is more efficacious than air,allowing quicker and better cecal intubation rates.Abdominal discomfort and bloating were significantly less with CO2 insufflation.
