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.