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.