Efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide versus room-air insufflation in pediatric colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 3.6 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Ajay Aravind, Ujjal Poddar, Anshu Srivastava, Moinak Sen Sarma
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide versus room-air insufflation in pediatric colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Ajay Aravind, Ujjal Poddar, Anshu Srivastava, Moinak Sen Sarma","doi":"10.3345/cep.2024.02012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adequately powered studies in children are scarce and there are reports on the risk of carbon dioxide (CO2) retention after colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study investigated the efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation in children undergoing colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care hospital between March 2023 and July 2024. We recruited 200 consecutive children (age, 5-18 years; n=100 in each arm) who underwent colonoscopy under conscious sedation. Patients were randomized to receive CO2 or room air using a random number table. The primary outcome measure was postprocedural pain assessed by using a visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures included time to reach the cecum, total procedure duration, abdominal distension, and end-tidal CO2 level. Complications were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pain scores at 2 and 4 h post-procedure were significantly lower in the CO2 versus room-air group (1.12 vs. 1.66, p=0.001 at 2 h and 0.37 vs. 0.61, p=0.002 at 4 h). The time to reach the cecum was significantly higher in the CO2 group (39.6 vs. 26.6 min, p=0.01). A greater proportion of children in the room-air group (29% vs. 19%, p=0.04) reported significant pain (visual analog scale score, ≥3). The subgroup analysis revealed a significantly longer time to reach the cecum and total procedure duration in the CO2 group among first-year trainees. End-tidal CO2 levels were significantly higher in the CO2 group (36 [interquartile range, 35-37] mmHg vs. 34 [interquartile range, 32-35] mmHg, p=0.001), but none developed any signs of CO2 retention. No significant intergroup differences were noted in abdominal girth, bloating sensation, analgesic requirements, or procedure-related complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>s: CO2 insufflation is safer and makes the procedure less painful but slower than room-air insufflation, especially in first-year trainees, without an increased risk of retention.</p>","PeriodicalId":36018,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3345/cep.2024.02012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Adequately powered studies in children are scarce and there are reports on the risk of carbon dioxide (CO2) retention after colonoscopy.

Purpose: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation in children undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care hospital between March 2023 and July 2024. We recruited 200 consecutive children (age, 5-18 years; n=100 in each arm) who underwent colonoscopy under conscious sedation. Patients were randomized to receive CO2 or room air using a random number table. The primary outcome measure was postprocedural pain assessed by using a visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures included time to reach the cecum, total procedure duration, abdominal distension, and end-tidal CO2 level. Complications were recorded.

Results: Pain scores at 2 and 4 h post-procedure were significantly lower in the CO2 versus room-air group (1.12 vs. 1.66, p=0.001 at 2 h and 0.37 vs. 0.61, p=0.002 at 4 h). The time to reach the cecum was significantly higher in the CO2 group (39.6 vs. 26.6 min, p=0.01). A greater proportion of children in the room-air group (29% vs. 19%, p=0.04) reported significant pain (visual analog scale score, ≥3). The subgroup analysis revealed a significantly longer time to reach the cecum and total procedure duration in the CO2 group among first-year trainees. End-tidal CO2 levels were significantly higher in the CO2 group (36 [interquartile range, 35-37] mmHg vs. 34 [interquartile range, 32-35] mmHg, p=0.001), but none developed any signs of CO2 retention. No significant intergroup differences were noted in abdominal girth, bloating sensation, analgesic requirements, or procedure-related complications.

Conclusion: s: CO2 insufflation is safer and makes the procedure less painful but slower than room-air insufflation, especially in first-year trainees, without an increased risk of retention.

儿童结肠镜检查中二氧化碳与室内空气充气的有效性和安全性:一项随机对照试验。
背景:在儿童中进行的充分有力的研究很少,并且有关于结肠镜检查后二氧化碳(CO2)滞留风险的报道。目的:探讨儿童结肠镜检查CO2充气的有效性和安全性。方法:该前瞻性随机临床试验于2023年3月至2024年7月在一家三级医院进行。我们连续招募了200名儿童(年龄5-18岁;每臂100例)在清醒镇静状态下接受结肠镜检查。患者使用随机数字表随机接受二氧化碳或室内空气。主要结局指标是通过视觉模拟量表评估术后疼痛。次要观察指标包括到达盲肠的时间、手术总时间、腹胀和潮末CO2水平。记录并发症。结果:CO2组术后2 h和4 h疼痛评分明显低于室内空气组(2 h时为1.12比1.66,p=0.001; 4 h时为0.37比0.61,p=0.002), CO2组到达盲肠的时间明显高于室内空气组(39.6比26.6 min, p=0.01)。室内空气组中较大比例的儿童(29% vs. 19%, p=0.04)报告了明显的疼痛(视觉模拟量表评分,≥3)。亚组分析显示,在第一年的受训人员中,CO2组到达盲肠的时间和总手术时间明显更长。在CO2组中,潮末CO2水平明显较高(36[四分位数范围,35-37]mmHg vs. 34[四分位数范围,32-35]mmHg, p=0.001),但没有出现任何CO2滞留的迹象。在腹围、腹胀感、镇痛需求或手术相关并发症方面,组间无显著差异。结论:CO2充气比室内空气充气更安全,疼痛更少,但速度更慢,特别是在第一年的实习生中,没有增加潴留的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
2.40%
发文量
88
审稿时长
60 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信