Carbon dioxide insufflation during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection for patients with obstructive ventilatory disturbance

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

A prospective randomized controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide insufflation compared with room air insufflation during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) insufflation during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (GESD) under sedation can be used instead of room air insufflation. Appropriate monitoring of the partial pressure of CO₂ during GESD is necessary due to the impaired respiration. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of CO₂ insufflation during GESD compared with conventional room air insufflation.

METHODS

Patients with a gastric epithelial neoplasm or early gastric cancer were enrolled. A total of 76 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to the CO₂ insufflation group (CO₂ group) or the room air insufflation group (air group). The primary outcome was the mean difference of end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂ ) between two groups.

RESULTS

The upper bound of the 95% CI for the mean EtCO₂ difference between the two groups before the procedure and at 15, 30 and 45 min after insufflation met the criteria for noninferiority. In a subgroup analysis of patients 70 years and older, the mean difference of EtCO₂ was not significantly different between two groups. However, the air group received more analgesics than the CO₂ group after the procedure (67.6% vs 35.1%, P = 0.005). In addition, in terms of improvement of abdominal pain or bowel gas after 24 h of GESD, CO₂ group showed better results than air group (both P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

CO₂ insufflation during GESD is as safe as using room air, and patients, including elderly patients, receiving CO₂ achieve more rapid relief of abdominal pain and intra-abdominal residual gas during and after the procedure.

Carbon Dioxide vs. Air Insufflation for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures has gained popularity in adults. However, its utility in pediatric patients is not known. The current review aimed to compare the efficacy of CO2 vs. air insufflation for GI endoscopic procedures in pediatric patients. Methods: The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched from the inception of databases to 15th August 2020. Results: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CO2 vs. air insufflation for GI endoscopic procedures in pediatric patients were eligible for inclusion. Five RCTs were identified. Pooled analysis of data from 226 patients in the CO2 group and 224 patients in the air group revealed that patients receiving CO2 insufflation were at a lower odds of experiencing postoperative pain as compared to those undergoing the procedure with air (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.87; I 2 = 62%; p = 0.02). Descriptive analysis indicated no difference in the two groups for abdominal distention after the procedure. Two trials reported elevated CO2 in the study group but without any pulmonary complications. Bloating was reported by two studies and both reported significantly less bloating in the CO2 group. Conclusion: Our study indicates that the incidence of pain may be reduced with the use of CO2 insufflation in pediatric GI endoscopies without a significant risk of adverse events. However, current evidence is from a limited number of trials and not strong to recommend a routine of CO2 in pediatric gastroenterology practice. Further high-quality RCTs are required to supplement current evidence.

Safety of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients undergoing carbon dioxide insufflation in extended endoscopic procedures

Introduction:

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation for endoscopies has been shown to be more comfortable and safe, but only in patients without underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to show that using CO₂ is safe in COPD patients.

Methods:

Patients were retrospectively identified who underwent extended endoscopic procedures during the time period of January 2012 to December 2017. Patients were included if they also had COPD. A matched control group without COPD was created during the same timeframe. All the patients were sedated with continuous monitoring of their CO₂ levels by end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂).

Results:

One hundred and ten patients had COPD and underwent an extended endoscopic procedure. These patients had a higher severity of their comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or 4) (93.6% [95% confidence interval [CI], 87.4%–96.9%] vs. 60.3% [95% CI, 51.1%–69.0%]; P < 0.01) and an increase of co-existing obstructive sleep apnea (33.6% vs. 6.3%, P < 0.01). There was no difference in baseline EtCO₂, but the peak EtCO₂ and postprocedure EtCO₂ were both significantly higher in the COPD group. The only postprocedural complication found was an inability to be extubated immediately following the procedure with subsequent need to hospitalize the patient, which occurred in three patients (2.8%; 95% CI, 0.9%–7.9%) in the COPD group and one (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.2%–4.9%) in the non-COPD group (P = 0.37).

Conclusion:

The present study, which was the only study looking at CO₂ insufflation specifically in COPD patients, provides evidence that CO₂ insufflation is safe in COPD despite a slight increase in EtCO₂.

Carbon dioxide gas endoscopy of the deep gluteal space

The treatment of hip and pelvic pain associated with abnormalities of the deep gluteal space has evolved and increasingly involves endoscopic techniques with a saline expansion medium. This investigation presents a surgical technique utilizing carbon dioxide as the insufflation medium for deep gluteal space endoscopy in 17 cadaveric hips. This technique was successful in 94% (16/17) of the hips, allowing for visualization of the sciatic nerve, posterior femoral cutaneous nerve, pudendal nerve, branch of the inferior gluteal artery crossing the sciatic nerve, piriformis muscle, hamstring tendon origin, and lesser trochanter. Our experience suggests that gas expansion presents several advantages over fluid expansion.

Insufflation With Carbon Dioxide During Pediatric Colonoscopy for Control of Postprocedure Pain

GOALS

To determine if carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation in children would improve postprocedure pain following colonoscopy in children.

BACKGROUND

CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy has been found to reduce postcolonoscopy pain in the adult population, but limited data exist in pediatrics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective study with 40 pediatric patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy. Patients were enrolled continuously and were randomized to receive CO2 or air insufflation. Patients and colonoscopists were blinded to insufflation method. End tidal CO2 (EtCO2) was documented throughout the procedure. Abdominal pain was established preprocedure then at 1-, 6-, and 24-hour postprocedure. Subject demographics, indications, colonoscopists' year of training, time to cecum, adverse events, and final diagnoses were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were randomized to each group. Patients receiving air had a statistically significant increase in pain from baseline at 1- and 6-hours after colonoscopy (P=0.007 and 0.008). This was not seen in the CO2 group (P=0.740 and 0.289). There was an increase in postprocedure pain in the air group compared with CO2 group at the 1-hour mark (P=0.032). EtCO2 increased during the procedure, regardless of insufflation method, but no difference was seen between groups (P=0.822).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that higher levels of pain were reported by patients following air compared with those receiving CO2 insufflation. This is the first study to show CO2 is as safe as air, with no increase in EtCO2 between groups in the pediatric population. CO2 is an effective and safe modality and should be considered for pediatric colonoscopies.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps can reduce post-procedure abdominal pain: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background

Studies of the use of CO₂ insufflation during endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps (LCPs) are lacking.

Objective

We evaluated the effect of CO₂ insufflation on pain after endoscopic resection of LCPs.

Methods

In a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT), 132 patients were randomly assigned to groups who underwent endoscopic resection with CO₂ insufflation (CO₂ group, n = 66) or air insufflation (air group, n = 66). The primary outcome was abdominal pain post-procedure (PP). The secondary outcomes were abdominal distension, rates of technical success, amounts of sedatives prescribed, use of analgesics, and adverse events.

Results

Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The mean abdominal pain score was 12.3 in the CO₂ group vs. 17.5 in the air group at 1 h PP (p  =  0.047). Also, the proportion of patients without pain was significantly higher in the CO₂ group at 1 h PP (p = 0.008). The pain score differed more in the endoscopic submucosal dissection group and long-time group. The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

The results of this RCT demonstrate the superiority of CO₂ insufflation for endoscopic resection of LCPs in terms of decreasing PP abdominal pain (KCT0001636).

Comparison of carbon dioxide and air insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy in moderate-sedation patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopy is performed with air insufflation and is usually associated with abdominal pain. It is well recognized that carbon dioxide (CO₂) is absorbed more quickly into the body than air; however, to date, few studies have investigated the use of CO₂ insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy (CEC). Thus, this study evaluated the efficacy of CO₂ insufflation compared with air insufflation in CEC.

METHODS

From March 2014 to April 2016, a total of 215 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive CO₂ insufflation (CO₂ group, n = 108) or air insufflation (air group, n = 107). Abdominal pain after CEC was recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The amount of sedatives administered, use of analgesics, polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), abdominal circumference, and adverse events were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Baseline patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups. Abdominal pain on the VAS in the CO₂ group and air group 1 hour after CEC was, respectively, 13.8 and 20.1 (P = .010), 3 hours after CEC was 8.3 and 12.5 (P = .056), 6 hours after CEC was 3.5 and 5.3 (P = .246), and 1 day after CEC was 1.8 and 3.4 (P = .192). The dose of sedative administered, analgesic usage, PDR, ADR, and adverse events were not statistically different between the groups. However, the increase in abdominal circumference was significantly higher in the air group than in the CO₂ group.

CONCLUSIONS

CO₂ insufflation was superior to air insufflation with regard to the pain score on the VAS in the hour after CEC. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001491.).

Carbon Dioxide versus Air Insufflation in Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with air insufflation is commonly used for the staging and treatment of early gastric carcinoma. However, carbon dioxide (CO₂) use has been shown to cause less post-procedural pain and fewer adverse events. The objective of this study was to compare the post-procedural pain and adverse events associated with CO₂ and air insufflation in ESD.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing the two approaches in ESD. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to analyze the data. The mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.

Results

Four RCTs with a total of 391 patients who underwent ESD were included in our meta-analysis. The difference in maximal post-procedural pain between the two groups was statistically significant (MD, -7.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.6 – -1.21; p=0.020). However, no significant differences were found in the length of procedure, end-tidal CO₂, rate of perforation, and postprocedural hemorrhage between the two groups. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly lower in the CO₂ group (OR, 0.51; CI, 0.32–0.84; p=0.007).

Conclusions:

CO₂ insufflation in gastric ESD is associated with less post-operative pain and discomfort, and a lower risk of overall adverse events compared with air insufflation.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced endoscopic technique that allows en-bloc resection of gastrointestinal tumor. We systematically review the medical literature in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD. Patients and methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid, CINAHL, and Cochrane for studies reporting on the clinical efficacy and safety profile of colorectal ESD. Results: Included in this study were 13833 tumors in 13603 patients (42 % female) who underwent colorectal ESD between 1998 and 2014. The R0 resection rate was 83 % (95 % CI, 80 - 86 %) with significant between-study heterogeneity (P < 0.001) which was partly explained by difference in continent (P = 0.004), study design (P = 0.04), duration of the procedure (P = 0.009), and, marginally, by average tumor size (P = 0.09). Endoscopic en bloc and curative resection rates were 92 % (95 % CI, 90 - 94 %) and 86 % (95 % CI, 80 - 90 %), respectively. The rates of immediate and delayed perforation were 4.2 % (95 % CI, 3.5 - 5.0 %) and 0.22 % (95 % CI, 0.11 - 0.46 %), respectively, while rates of immediate and delayed major bleeding were 0.75 % (95 % CI, 0.31 - 1.8 %) and 2.1 % (95 % CI, 1.6 - 2.6 %). After an average postoperative follow up of 19 months, the rate of tumor recurrence was 0.04 % (95 % CI, 0.01 - 0.31) among those with R0 resection and 3.6 % (95 % CI, 1.4 - 8.8 %) among those without R0 resection. Overall, irrespective of the resection status, recurrence rate was 1.0 % (95 % CI, 0.42 - 2.1 %). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis, the largest and most comprehensive assessment of colorectal ESD to date, showed that colorectal ESD is safe and effective for colorectal tumors and warrants consideration as first-line therapy when an expert operator is available.

Randomized, double-blind trial of CO2 versus air insufflation in children undergoing colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies in adults have shown that postprocedural abdominal pain is reduced with the use of carbon dioxide (CO(2)) instead of air for insufflation during colonoscopy. The aim of our study was to compare postprocedural abdominal pain and girth in children undergoing colonoscopy using CO(2) or air for insufflation.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study that included 76 consecutive pediatric patients undergoing colonoscopy for various indications. Patients were randomly assigned to either CO(2) or air insufflation. At 2, 4, and 24 hours after the examination, the patients' pain was assessed by using the 11-point numerical rating scale. The waist circumference was measured 10 minutes and 2 and 4 hours after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A significantly higher proportion of patients had no pain after colonoscopy in the CO(2) group compared with the air group (82 vs 37% at 2 hours and 95% vs. 63% at 4 hours, P < .001). Mean abdominal pain scores 2 and 4 hours after the procedure were statistically significantly lower in the CO(2) group compared with the control air group (0.5 vs 2.6 at 2 hours and 0.1 vs 1.2 at 4 hours, P < .001). There was no difference in waist circumference between the 2 groups at all time intervals.

CONCLUSION

The results of this randomized trial show clear benefits of CO(2) insufflation for colonoscopy in reducing postprocedural discomfort. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02407639.).

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Recent technical advances for safe and successful procedures

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is very useful in en bloc resection of large superficial colorectal tumors but is a technically difficult procedure because the colonic wall is thin and endoscopic maneuverability is poor because of colonic flexure and extensibility. A high risk of perforation has been reported in colorectal ESD. To prevent complications such as perforation and unexpected bleeding, it is crucial to ensure good visualization of the submucosal layer by creating a mucosal flap, which is an exfoliated mucosa for inserting the tip of the endoscope under it. The creation of a mucosal flap is often technically difficult; however, various types of equipment, appropriate strategy, and novel procedures including our clip-flap method, appear to facilitate mucosal flap creation, improving the safety and success rate of ESD. Favorable treatment outcomes with colorectal ESD have already been reported in many advanced institutions, and appropriate understanding of techniques and development of training systems are required for world-wide standardization of colorectal ESD. Here, we describe recent technical advances for safe and successful colorectal ESD.

Safety of carbon dioxide insufflation during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with pulmonary dysfunction under conscious sedation

BACKGROUND

Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation is effective for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, its safety is unknown in patients with pulmonary dysfunction. This study aimed to investigate the safety of CO2 insufflation during gastric ESD in patients with pulmonary dysfunction under conscious sedation.

METHODS

We analyzed 322 consecutive patients undergoing ESD using CO2 insufflation (1.4 L/min) for gastric lesions. Pulmonary dysfunction was defined as a forced expiratory volume in 1.0 s/forced vital capacity (FEV1.0%) <70% or vital capacity <80%. Transcutaneous partial pressure of CO2 (PtcCO2) was recorded before, during, and after ESD.

RESULTS

In total, 127 patients (39%) had pulmonary dysfunction. There were no significant differences in baseline PtcCO2 before ESD, peak PtcCO2 during ESD, and median PtcCO2 after ESD between the pulmonary dysfunction group and normal group. There was a significant correlation between PtcCO2 elevation from baseline and ESD procedure time (r = 0.22, P < 0.05) only in the pulmonary dysfunction group. In patients with FEV1.0% <60%, the correlation was much stronger (r = 0.39, P < 0.05). Neither the complication incidences nor the hospital stay differed between the two groups. CO2 narcosis or gas embolism was not reported in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

CO2 insufflation during gastric ESD in patients with pulmonary dysfunction under conscious sedation is safe with regard to complication risk and hospital stay. However, in patients with severe obstructive lung disease, especially in those with FEV1.0% <60%, longer procedure time may induce CO2 retention, thus requiring CO2 monitoring.