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.
背景和研究目的:结肠镜检查与需要静脉镇静(IVS)的不适有关。本随机对照试验(RCT)的目的是通过两个主要终点:盲肠插管率和IVS抢救率,探讨虚拟现实牵引(VRD)用于结肠镜检查的可行性。患者和方法:计划进行选择性IVS结肠镜检查的患者按2:1的比例随机分组,支持VRD,必要时使用异丙酚进行IVS抢救。VRD涉及使用一种提供视觉和听觉体验的设备,类似于临床催眠。结果:共纳入90例患者(VRD:60, IVS: 30)。两组盲肠插管率相似(VRD组92.8% vs IVS组100%,P =0.3)。VRD组抢救IVS率为63.6%。VRD组每位患者丙泊酚的中位总剂量降低(VRD组为1.15 mg/kg, IVS组为4.41 mg/kg, P =0.003)。VRD组疼痛中位水平较高,舒适中位水平较低(分别为3 vs 0, P P)。结论:本RCT为更好地了解VRD用于结肠镜检查的可行性提供了初步数据。我们没有发现与传统IVS相比手术结果的差异,但尽管如此,报道了更高的疼痛和更低的舒适评分。