Endoscopy 2020; 52(S 01): S45
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1704137
ESGE Days 2020 oral presentations
Thursday, April 23, 2020 14:30 – 16:00 Twist and shout through the bowel Liffey Meeting Room 1
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF WATER-EXCHANGE ENTEROSCOPY COMPARED TO CARBON DIOXIDE INSUFFLATION DURING ENTEROSCOPY

G Blanco-Velasco
1   CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Endoscopy, Mexico City, Mexico
,
RA Zamarripa-Mottu
1   CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Endoscopy, Mexico City, Mexico
,
R Soria-Rodríguez
1   CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Endoscopy, Mexico City, Mexico
,
OM Solórzano-Pineda
1   CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Endoscopy, Mexico City, Mexico
,
E Murcio-Pérez
1   CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Endoscopy, Mexico City, Mexico
,
JM Blancas-Valencia
1   CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Endoscopy, Mexico City, Mexico
,
OV Hernández-Mondragón
1   CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Endoscopy, Mexico City, Mexico
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 April 2020 (online)

Also available at
 
 

    Aims Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation during enteroscopy reduces procedure time (PT) and discomfort; and increases intubation depth (ID) compared to room air. In colonoscopies, water-exchange (WE) technique is less painful and increases adenoma detection rate compared to CO2 insufflation. The WE technique is not well studied in enteroscopy. The aim of this work is to compare the efficacy and safety of WE enteroscopy with CO2 enteroscopy.

    Methods This is a prospective, comparative and observational study, which included all double balloon enteroscopies (DBE) realized between June and November 2019. The DBE were randomized in group A (WE DBE with saline solution) and group B (DBE with CO2 insufflation). Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, indication, ID, PT, findings, therapeutics, adverse events (pain, discomfort or nausea) and major complications (hemorrhage, perforation or pancreatitis). Data were evaluated using univariated analysis and a multiple logistic regression (variables with p≤0.1 in univariated analysis) and were presented as median (percentiles), frequencies (percentage) or OR (95%CI).

    Results There were 40 DBE included (20 per group; age 63, 37.5% female). 26 DBE were anterograde, median PT were 75 minutes (60, 106) and median ID was 225 cm (150, 295). The principal indication was small bowel bleeding (52.5%). There were no statistical differences in access route, findings, therapeutics, PT and mayor complications between groups. Four patients (20%) in CO2 group had adverse events (discomfort) and 1 in WE group (nausea) with no statistical difference. The median ID was higher in CO2 group (255 cm vs. 155 cm; p=0.072). Multiple logistic regression showed that ID had statistical difference with CO2 insufflation compared to WE (OR 1.010, 1.001-1.019; p=0.035).

    Conclusions EDB with CO2 insufflation technique and with WE are safe procedures with a statistical major ID in the CO2 insufflation group.


    #