Efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide versus room-air insufflation in pediatric colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 3.2 Q1 PEDIATRICS Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI:10.3345/cep.2024.02012
Ajay Aravind, Ujjal Poddar, Anshu Srivastava, Moinak Sen Sarma
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide versus room-air insufflation in pediatric colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Ajay Aravind, Ujjal Poddar, Anshu Srivastava, Moinak Sen Sarma","doi":"10.3345/cep.2024.02012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adequately powered studies in children are scarce and there are reports on the risk of carbon dioxide (CO2) retention after colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study investigated the efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation in children undergoing colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care hospital between March 2023 and July 2024. We recruited 200 consecutive children (age, 5-18 years; n=100 in each arm) who underwent colonoscopy under conscious sedation. Patients were randomized to receive CO2 or room air using a random number table. The primary outcome measure was postprocedural pain assessed by using a visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures included time to reach the cecum, total procedure duration, abdominal distension, and end-tidal CO2 level. Complications were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pain scores at 2 and 4 h post-procedure were significantly lower in the CO2 versus room-air group (1.12 vs. 1.66, p=0.001 at 2 h and 0.37 vs. 0.61, p=0.002 at 4 h). The time to reach the cecum was significantly higher in the CO2 group (39.6 vs. 26.6 min, p=0.01). A greater proportion of children in the room-air group (29% vs. 19%, p=0.04) reported significant pain (visual analog scale score, ≥3). The subgroup analysis revealed a significantly longer time to reach the cecum and total procedure duration in the CO2 group among first-year trainees. End-tidal CO2 levels were significantly higher in the CO2 group (36 [interquartile range, 35-37] mmHg vs. 34 [interquartile range, 32-35] mmHg, p=0.001), but none developed any signs of CO2 retention. No significant intergroup differences were noted in abdominal girth, bloating sensation, analgesic requirements, or procedure-related complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>s: CO2 insufflation is safer and makes the procedure less painful but slower than room-air insufflation, especially in first-year trainees, without an increased risk of retention.</p>","PeriodicalId":36018,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3345/cep.2024.02012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Adequately powered studies in children are scarce and there are reports on the risk of carbon dioxide (CO2) retention after colonoscopy.

Purpose: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation in children undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care hospital between March 2023 and July 2024. We recruited 200 consecutive children (age, 5-18 years; n=100 in each arm) who underwent colonoscopy under conscious sedation. Patients were randomized to receive CO2 or room air using a random number table. The primary outcome measure was postprocedural pain assessed by using a visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures included time to reach the cecum, total procedure duration, abdominal distension, and end-tidal CO2 level. Complications were recorded.

Results: Pain scores at 2 and 4 h post-procedure were significantly lower in the CO2 versus room-air group (1.12 vs. 1.66, p=0.001 at 2 h and 0.37 vs. 0.61, p=0.002 at 4 h). The time to reach the cecum was significantly higher in the CO2 group (39.6 vs. 26.6 min, p=0.01). A greater proportion of children in the room-air group (29% vs. 19%, p=0.04) reported significant pain (visual analog scale score, ≥3). The subgroup analysis revealed a significantly longer time to reach the cecum and total procedure duration in the CO2 group among first-year trainees. End-tidal CO2 levels were significantly higher in the CO2 group (36 [interquartile range, 35-37] mmHg vs. 34 [interquartile range, 32-35] mmHg, p=0.001), but none developed any signs of CO2 retention. No significant intergroup differences were noted in abdominal girth, bloating sensation, analgesic requirements, or procedure-related complications.

Conclusion: s: CO2 insufflation is safer and makes the procedure less painful but slower than room-air insufflation, especially in first-year trainees, without an increased risk of retention.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
2.40%
发文量
88
审稿时长
60 weeks
期刊最新文献
Abdominal pain in a young girl: a twist in the tale. Aplasia cutis congenita with unique vascular malformation and cranial hypoplasia: a case in a preterm infant. Debate around and impact of digital screen time and media parenting on children's development. Efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide versus room-air insufflation in pediatric colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatric patients with type VI mucopolysaccharidosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1