University of Adelaide Library

Adelaide Research and Scholarship : Schools and Disciplines : School of Medicine : Medicine : Medicine publications

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/73372

Type: Journal article
Title: Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients
Author: Singh, R.
Neo, E.
Nordeen, N.
Shanmuganathan, G.
Ashby, A.
Drummond, S.
Nind, G.
Murphy, E.
Luck, A.
Tucker, G.
Tan, W.
Citation: World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2012; 18(25):3250-3253
Publisher: W J G Press
Issue Date: 2012
ISSN: 1007-9327
Statement of
Responsibility: 
R. Singh, E.N. Neo, N. Nordeen, G. Shanmuganathan, A. Ashby, S. Drummond, G. Nind, E. Murphy, A. Luck, G. Tucker and W. Tam
Abstract: AIM: To compare the impact of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and air insufflation on patient tolerance/safety in deeply sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients referred for colonoscopy were randomized to receive either CO₂ or air insufflation during the procedure. Both the colonoscopist and patient were blinded to the type of gas used. During the procedure, insertion and withdrawal times, caecal intubation rates, total sedation given and capnography readings were recorded. The level of sedation and magnitude of patient discomfort during the procedure was assessed by a nurse using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-3). Patients then graded their level of discomfort and abdominal bloating using a similar VAS. Complications during and after the procedure were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were randomized with 72 in the air arm and 70 in the CO₂ arm. Mean age between the two study groups were similar. Insertion time to the caecum was quicker in the CO₂ group at 7.3 min vs 9.9 min with air (P = 0.0083). The average withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups. Caecal intubation rates were 94.4% and 100% in the air and CO₂ groups respectively (P = 0.012). The level of discomfort assessed by the nurse was 0.69 (air) and 0.39 (CO₂) (P = 0.0155) and by the patient 0.82 (air) and 0.46 (CO₂) (P = 0.0228). The level of abdominal bloating was 0.97 (air) and 0.36 (CO₂) (P = 0.001). Capnography readings trended to be higher in the CO₂ group at the commencement, caecal intubation, and conclusion of the procedure, even though this was not significantly different when compared to readings obtained during air insufflation. There were no complications in both arms. CONCLUSION: CO₂ insufflation during colonoscopy is more efficacious than air, allowing quicker and better cecal intubation rates. Abdominal discomfort and bloating were significantly less with CO₂ insufflation.
Rights: © 2012 Published by The WJG Press. All rights reserved
RMID: 0020120989
Description (link): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22783048
Appears in Collections:Medicine publications
View citing articles in: Web of Science

There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

© 2008 The University of Adelaide
library@adelaide.edu.au
CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
Service Charter | Copyright | Privacy | Disclaimer