Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2017; 05(01): E67-E75
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-118702
Original article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017

Carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Ashok Shiani
1   Department of Internal Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States
,
Seth Lipka
2   Department of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States
,
Andrew Lai
4   Morsani College of Medicine Medical School, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States
,
Andrea C. Rodriguez
1   Department of Internal Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States
,
Christian M. Andrade
2   Department of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States
,
Ambuj Kumar
3   Department of Evidence Based Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States
,
Patrick Brady
2   Department of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 19 May 2016

accepted after revision 04 October 2016

Publication Date:
25 January 2017 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation has been suggested to be an ideal alternative to room air insufflation to reduce trapped air within the bowel lumen after balloon assisted enteroscopy (BAE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of utilizing CO2 insufflation as compared to room air during BAE.

Patients and methods The primary outcome is mean change in visual analog scale (VAS; 10 cm) at 1, 3, and 6 hours to assess pain. Secondary outcomes include insertion depth (anterograde or retrograde), adverse events, total enteroscopy rate, diagnostic yield, mean anesthetic dosage, and PaCO2 at procedure completion. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until May 2015. Multiple independent extractions were performed, the process was executed as per the standards of the Cochrane collaboration.

Results Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. VAS at 6 hours favored CO2 over room air (MD 0.13; 95 % CI 0.01, 0.25; p = 0.03). Anterograde insertion depth (cm) was improved in the CO2 group (MD, 58.2; 95 % CI 17.17, 99.23; p = 0.005), with an improvement in total enteroscopy rate in the CO2 group (RR 1.91; 95 % CI 1.20, 3.06; p = 0.007). Mean dose of propofol (mg) favored CO2 compared to air (MD, – 70.53; 95 % CI – 115.07, – 25.98; P = 0.002). There were no differences in adverse events in either group.

Conclusions Despite the ability of CO2 to improve insertion depth and decrease amount of anesthesia required, further randomized control trials are needed to determine the agent of choice for insufflation in balloon assisted enteroscopy.

 

  • References

  • 1 Domagk D, Mensink P, Aktas H. et al. Single- vs. double-balloon enteroscopy in small-bowel diagnostics: a randomized multicenter trial. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 472-476
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bretthauer M, Hoff GS, Thiis-Evensen E. et al. Air and carbon dioxide volumes insufflated during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 203-206
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Dellon ES, Velayudham A, Clarke BW. et al. A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of air vs carbon dioxide insufflation during ERCP. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2010; 72: 68-77
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Church J, Delaney C. Randomized, controlled trial of carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 322-326
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Wang WL, Wu ZH, Sun Q. et al. Meta-analysis: the use of carbon dioxide insufflation vs. room air insufflation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35: 1145-1154
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Domagk D, Bretthauer M, Lenz P. et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation improves intubation depth in double-balloon enteroscopy: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 1064-1067
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Hirai F, Beppu T, Nishimura T. et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation compared with air insufflation in double-balloon enteroscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 743-749
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M. et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 1997; 315: 629-634
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled clinical trials 1986; 7: 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ. et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2011; 64: 401-406
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R. et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2011; 64: 1283-1293
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R. et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1294-1302
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V. et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1277-1282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G. et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence – study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 407-415
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Moher D, Altman DG, Liberati A. et al. PRISMA statement. Epidemiology 2011; 22: 128 ; author reply 128
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Li X, Zhao YJ, Dai J. et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation improves the intubation depth and total enteroscopy rate in single-balloon enteroscopy: a randomised, controlled, double-blind trial. Gut 2014; 63: 1560-1565
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lenz P, Meister T, Manno M. et al. CO2 insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 53-58
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Ishizaki Y, Bandai Y, Shimomura K. et al. Safe intraabdominal pressure of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 1993; 114: 549-554
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Sanaka MR, Navaneethan U, Kosuru B. et al. Antegrade is more effective than retrograde enteroscopy for evaluation and management of suspected small-bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 910-916
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar