Carbon dioxide insufflation in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection reduces mediastinal emphysema: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

Addition of Dexmedetomidine to the Anesthesia Regimen Attenuates Pain and Improves Early Recovery After Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Postoperative pain is a common yet often underestimated complication following esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with limited strategies for effective management. This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial assessed the effects of adding dexmedetomidine (DEX) to the anesthesia regimen on postoperative pain and early recovery in patients undergoing esophageal ESD.

Methods

In total, 60 patients scheduled for elective esophageal ESD under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to the DEX or control group. The DEX group received an intravenous loading dose of DEX at 1 μg/kg for 10 min, followed by a continuous intravenous infusion of 0.6 µg/kg/h, which was stopped 30 min before the end of the procedure. The control group received normal saline as a placebo. The study's primary outcome was the incidence of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, hemodynamic parameters, the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), patient satisfaction, and lengths of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and hospital.

Results

The incidence of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain in the DEX group was significantly lower than that in the control group (absolute difference: -33.4%; OR: 0.250; 95% CI: 0.085-0.731, P = 0.01). Pain scores at 1 h postoperatively (0.5[2.0] vs 3.0[1.3], P = 0.003) were significantly lower in the DEX group. Additionally, morphine dosage in the PACU (0[0] vs 1.0[2.0] P = 0.004) was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared with the control group. In the DEX group, the incidence and severity of PONV were significantly decreased and the length of PACU stay was shorter than in the control group (P < 0.01). However, the rates of intraoperative hypotension, tachycardia, and bradycardia were similar between the two groups. Patient satisfaction and length of hospital stay were also comparable.

Conclusion

Adding DEX to the anesthesia regimen for esophageal ESD significantly attenuates postoperative pain and improves early recovery outcomes.

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.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: How to be more efficient?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows an "en bloc" resection with safety margins (R0 resection) regardless of the size of the lesion. However, while R0 brings a real benefit for the patient, it is not considered sufficient by many experts to justify the technical difficulties and the longer procedure time compared to piecemeal mucosectomy. The aims of this review are to provide several technical and strategical tips to help you save time and become comfortable during ESD procedures. ESD is divided into several intertwined phases: injection, incision, access to the submucosae, and submucosal dissection itself. During injection there are some mistakes that should not be made: a superficial injection, or on the contrary, a too deep injection. A good needle and good injection technique are mandatory. Some techniques, such as repeated injection or prolonged lifting solution, can help maintain the lift. After this step, mucosal incision can be made, taking care to have a good margin to allow an R0 resection. Starting the mucosal incision from a small point allows calibration of the depth of the incision and then obtaining a nice incision. Trimming is also very important to widen submucosal access. Then comes the submucosal dissection itself. Strategies such as the tunnel strategy or the pocket creation method can help to facilitate dissection, but more importantly, traction systems have become unavoidable, especially in the stomach and colon. Most common complications are bleeding and perforation, and they usually can be managed endoscopically.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020

1:  ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3:  ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Predictive factors for difficult endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal neoplasia including failure of en bloc resection or perforation

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as the standard treatment for early-stage esophageal neoplasia. However, esophageal perforation may occur, leading to mediastinitis and pneumothorax, which occasionally require emergency surgery. Moreover, failure of en bloc resection causes local recurrence. However, studies on the predictors of such difficulties during ESD are limited. Hence, we evaluated the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for esophageal neoplasia including failure of en bloc resection or perforation.

METHODS

Data of 549 consecutive patients who were treated with ESD between May 2004 and March 2016 at a single institution were retrospectively studied. Exclusion criteria were the presence of metachronous esophageal neoplasia or missing data. The primary outcome was determining the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for esophageal neoplasia including failure of en bloc resection or perforation.

RESULTS

Altogether, 543 patients with 736 lesions were evaluated. Failure of en bloc resection occurred in 6 patients (1.1%) with 6 lesions, and perforation occurred in 11 patients (2.0%) with 11 lesions (1.5%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that large lesion diameter (odds ratio [OR] 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.84; p < 0.001) and previous chemoradiotherapy (OR 5.24; 95% CI 1.52-18.06; p = 0.009) were independent predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger lesions and previous chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer increased the risk for failure of en bloc resection or perforation in patients who underwent esophageal ESD.

Esophageal insufflation computed tomography in clinically normal dogs

OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility of esophageal insufflation CT (EICT) for evaluation of the esophagus in dogs. ANIMALS 7 clinically normal adult Beagles. PROCEDURES Each dog was anesthetized twice with 1 week between anesthesia sessions. Dogs were positioned in sternal recumbency during all CT scans. During the first anesthesia session, a CT scan was performed before the esophagus was insufflated (insufflation pressure, 0 mm Hg) and unenhanced and contrast-enhanced EICT scans were performed after CO₂ was insufflated into the esophageal lumen to achieve a pressure of 5 mm Hg. For the contrast-enhanced scan, each dog received iohexol (600 mg/kg, IV), and the scan was performed 30 seconds later. During the second anesthesia session, unenhanced and contrast-enhanced EICT scans were performed in the same manner except the insufflation pressure achieved was 10 mm Hg. The esophageal luminal cross-sectional area and wall thickness were measured at each of 5 segments, and mean values were compared among the 3 insufflation pressures and between unenhanced and contrast-enhanced images. RESULTS Mean esophageal luminal cross-sectional area increased and esophageal wall thickness decreased as insufflation pressure increased. Measurements did not differ significantly between unenhanced and contrast-enhanced images. The stomach became distended with CO₂ at an insufflation pressure of 10 mm Hg but not at 5 mm Hg. No adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results suggested EICT was feasible for esophageal evaluation in dogs. Further research is necessary to determine the optimal insufflation pressure for the procedure and its diagnostic efficacy in diseased patients.

The safety of endoscopic esophageal procedures under general anesthesia

BACKGROUND

With the increasing demand for general anesthesia for endoscopic esophageal procedures, anesthesiologists should understand the clinical characteristics of post-procedural complications (PPCs).

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated the incidence of and risk factors associated with PPCs of endoscopic esophageal procedures performed under general anesthesia from July 2013 to November 2016. The final analysis included 129 patients; 114 who underwent esophageal endoscopic dissection for esophageal tumors and 15 cases of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia. Frank perforation during the procedure was defined as an endoscopically recognizable or clinically detected perforation during the procedures. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors for PPCs.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PPCs was 19.4% (25/129). All of the PPCs were managed successfully with conservative measures. The most common PPC was symptomatic, radiologically documented atelectasis (11/25, 44.0%), followed by esophageal perforation-related PPCs (symptomatic pneumomediastinum or pneumoperitoneum; 9/25, 36.0%). In the multivariable analysis, frank perforation during the procedure was the only independent risk factor for PPCs (odds ratio, 8.470, 95% CI, 2.051-34.974, P = 0.003). Although frank perforation during the procedure occurred in 13 patients, 38.5% (5/13) of them did not develop any clinical sequelae after their procedures. Compared with patients without PPCs, patients who developed PPCs took longer to their first oral intake and had prolonged hospital stays (P = 0.047 and 0.026, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Iatrogenic perforation during endoscopic esophageal procedures under general anesthesia was the only independent risk factor for PPCs; therefore, proactive measures and close follow-up are necessary.

CO2 insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation is increasingly used for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) owing to the faster absorption of CO₂ as compared to that of air. Studies comparing CO₂ insufflation and air insufflation have reported conflicting results.

Objectives

This meta-analysis is aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of use of CO₂ insufflation for ESD.

Methods

Clinical trials of CO₂ insufflation versus air insufflation for ESD were searched in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Results

Eleven studies which compared the use of CO₂ insufflation and air insufflation, with a combined study population of 1026 patients, were included in the meta-analysis (n = 506 for CO₂ insufflation; n = 522 for air insufflation). Abdominal pain and VAS scores at 6h and 24h post-procedure in the CO₂ insufflation group were significantly lower than those in the air insufflation group, but not at 1h and 3h after ESD. The percentage of patients who experienced pain 1h and 24h post-procedure was obviously decreased. Use of CO₂ insufflation was associated with lower VAS scores for abdominal distention at 1h after ESD, but not at 24h after ESD. However, no significant differences were observed with respect to postoperative transcutaneous partial pressure carbon dioxide (PtcCO₂), arterial blood carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO₂), oxygen saturation (SpO₂%), abdominal circumference, hospital stay, white blood cell (WBC) counts, C-Reactive protein (CRP) level, dosage of sedatives used, incidence of dysphagia and other complications.

Conclusion

Use of CO₂ insufflation for ESD was safe and effective with regard to abdominal discomfort, procedure time, and the residual gas volume. However, there appeared no significant differences with respect to other parameters namely, PtcCO₂, PaCO₂, SpO₂%, abdominal circumference, hospital stay, sedation dosage, complications, WBC, CRP, and dysphagia.

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.