Impact of virtual reality distraction during colonoscopy vs intravenous deep sedation: Results of a single-center randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.2 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2025-03-14 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2520-9768
Anastasia Pavlidi, Lotfi Triki, Julien Mortier, Jacques Deviere, Arnaud Lemmers, Vincent Huberty, Patrice Forget, Mark Hannen, Caroline Quolin, Turgay Tuna, Daniel Blero, Marianna Arvanitakis
{"title":"Impact of virtual reality distraction during colonoscopy vs intravenous deep sedation: Results of a single-center randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Anastasia Pavlidi, Lotfi Triki, Julien Mortier, Jacques Deviere, Arnaud Lemmers, Vincent Huberty, Patrice Forget, Mark Hannen, Caroline Quolin, Turgay Tuna, Daniel Blero, Marianna Arvanitakis","doi":"10.1055/a-2520-9768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Colonoscopy is associated with discomfort that requires intravenous sedation (IVS). The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to explore the feasibility of virtual reality distraction (VRD) for colonoscopy using two primary endpoints: cecal intubation rate and the rate of rescue with IVS.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy with IVS were randomized in a 2:1 ratio in favor of VRD, with rescue IVS by propofol if needed. VRD involved use of a device providing a visual and auditive experience similar to clinical hypnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety patients were included (VRD:60, IVS: 30). Cecal intubation rate was similar in both groups (92.8% for VRD vs 100% for IVS, <i>P</i> =0.3). The rate of rescue IVS in the VRD group was 63.6%. There was a decrease in median total dose of propofol per patient in the VRD group (1.15 mg/kg for VRD and 4.41 mg/kg for IVS, <i>P</i> <0.001) and in the subgroup of VRD patients who received IVS rescue (3.17 mg/kg for VRD and 4.41 mg/kg for IVS, <i>P</i> =0.003). The median level of pain was higher and the median level of comfort was lower in the VRD group (respectively 3 vs 0, <i>P</i> <0.001 and 7 vs 10, <i>P</i> <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This RCT provides preliminary data to better understand the feasibility of VRD for colonoscopy. We have not identified differences in procedure outcomes compared with conventional IVS, but nevertheless, higher pain and lower comfort scores were reported.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a25209768"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11922172/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2520-9768","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims: Colonoscopy is associated with discomfort that requires intravenous sedation (IVS). The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to explore the feasibility of virtual reality distraction (VRD) for colonoscopy using two primary endpoints: cecal intubation rate and the rate of rescue with IVS.

Patients and methods: Patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy with IVS were randomized in a 2:1 ratio in favor of VRD, with rescue IVS by propofol if needed. VRD involved use of a device providing a visual and auditive experience similar to clinical hypnosis.

Results: Ninety patients were included (VRD:60, IVS: 30). Cecal intubation rate was similar in both groups (92.8% for VRD vs 100% for IVS, P =0.3). The rate of rescue IVS in the VRD group was 63.6%. There was a decrease in median total dose of propofol per patient in the VRD group (1.15 mg/kg for VRD and 4.41 mg/kg for IVS, P <0.001) and in the subgroup of VRD patients who received IVS rescue (3.17 mg/kg for VRD and 4.41 mg/kg for IVS, P =0.003). The median level of pain was higher and the median level of comfort was lower in the VRD group (respectively 3 vs 0, P <0.001 and 7 vs 10, P <0.001).

Conclusions: This RCT provides preliminary data to better understand the feasibility of VRD for colonoscopy. We have not identified differences in procedure outcomes compared with conventional IVS, but nevertheless, higher pain and lower comfort scores were reported.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信