Department of Medicine B, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Department of Medicine II, Helios Albert-Schweitzer University Teaching Hospital Northeim, Northeim, Germany.
Endoscopy. 2014 Jan;46(1):53-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1359041. Epub 2013 Dec 18.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation has previously been shown to have advantages over air insufflation in terms of procedure-related pain and oral insertion depth during double-balloon enteroscopy. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the performance of CO2 vs. air insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy.
This study was a randomized European multicenter trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01524055). Patients and endoscopists were blinded to the type of insufflation gas used. Patient discomfort during and after the procedure was scored using a visual analog scale.
A total of 107 patients were enrolled in the study (52 in the CO2 group and 55 in the air group). Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. The mean (±SD) oral intubation depth was not significantly deeper in the CO2 group vs. the air group (254±80 vs. 238±55 cm; P=0.726). However, in patients with previous abdominal surgery, oral intubation depth was significantly higher in the CO2 group compared with the air group (258±84 vs. 192±42 cm; P<0.05). In patients undergoing SBE via the anal approach, CO2 showed no significant difference in intubation depth compared with air insufflation (86±67 vs. 110±68 cm; P=0.155). The diagnostic yield was comparable (CO2 67%; air 73%). Procedure times, dosage of sedation, and therapeutic interventions did not differ between the two groups. Patients in the CO2 group reported less pain than those in the air group.
This study demonstrated an advantage of using CO2 insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy in patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery. Overall, single-balloon enteroscopy was a well-tolerated procedure that may benefit from the use of CO2 insufflation to reduce post-procedural pain.
二氧化碳(CO2)注气在双气囊小肠镜检查中与空气注气相比,具有操作相关疼痛和口腔插入深度的优势。本前瞻性研究的目的是评估 CO2 与空气注气在单气囊小肠镜检查中的性能。
这是一项随机的欧洲多中心试验(ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01524055)。患者和内镜医生对使用的注气类型均不知情。使用视觉模拟评分法评估患者在操作过程中和操作后的不适程度。
共有 107 例患者入组本研究(CO2 组 52 例,空气组 55 例)。两组患者的特征相似。CO2 组与空气组的口腔插管深度平均值(±SD)无显著差异(254±80 与 238±55cm;P=0.726)。然而,在既往腹部手术的患者中,CO2 组的口腔插管深度明显高于空气组(258±84 与 192±42cm;P<0.05)。经肛门途径行 SBE 的患者中,CO2 与空气注气在插管深度上无显著差异(86±67 与 110±68cm;P=0.155)。诊断率相当(CO2 组 67%;空气组 73%)。两组间操作时间、镇静剂剂量和治疗干预无差异。CO2 组患者的疼痛程度低于空气组。
本研究表明,在既往有腹部手术史的患者中,单气囊小肠镜检查中使用 CO2 注气具有优势。总体而言,单气囊小肠镜检查是一种耐受性良好的操作,使用 CO2 注气可能有助于减轻术后疼痛。