Li Xuan, Dong Hao, Zhang Yifeng, Zhang Guoxin
Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Department of Gastroenterology, the First School of Clinical Medicine of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
PLoS One. 2017 May 24;12(5):e0177909. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177909. eCollection 2017.
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.
This meta-analysis is aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of use of CO2 insufflation for ESD.
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).
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.
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.
由于二氧化碳(CO₂)比空气吸收更快,二氧化碳充气越来越多地用于内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)。比较二氧化碳充气和空气充气的研究报告了相互矛盾的结果。
本荟萃分析旨在评估二氧化碳充气用于ESD的有效性和安全性。
在PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和中国生物医学文献数据库中检索了比较二氧化碳充气与空气充气用于ESD的临床试验。我们对所有随机对照试验(RCT)进行了荟萃分析。
荟萃分析纳入了11项比较二氧化碳充气和空气充气使用情况的研究,合并研究人群为1026例患者(二氧化碳充气组n = 506;空气充气组n = 522)。二氧化碳充气组术后6小时和24小时的腹痛和视觉模拟评分(VAS)显著低于空气充气组,但在ESD后1小时和3小时无显著差异。术后1小时和24小时经历疼痛的患者百分比明显降低。ESD后1小时使用二氧化碳充气与腹胀的较低VAS评分相关,但在ESD后24小时无此关联。然而,在术后经皮二氧化碳分压(PtcCO₂)、动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO₂)、血氧饱和度(SpO₂%)、腹围、住院时间、白细胞(WBC)计数、C反应蛋白(CRP)水平、所用镇静剂剂量、吞咽困难发生率和其他并发症方面未观察到显著差异。
就腹部不适、手术时间和残留气体量而言,二氧化碳充气用于ESD是安全有效的。然而,在其他参数方面,即PtcCO₂、PaCO₂、SpO₂%、腹围、住院时间、镇静剂量、并发症、WBC、CRP和吞咽困难方面,未出现显著差异。