CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2018; 06(06): E637-E645
DOI: 10.1055/a-0574-2357
Original article
Owner and Copyright © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018

Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Julio Cesar Martins Aquino
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Wanderley Marques Bernardo
Department of Surgery of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Flávio Hiroshi Ananias Morita
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Rodrigo Silva de Paula Rocha
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Maurício Kazuyoshi Minata
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Martin Coronel
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Gustavo Luís da Silva Rodela
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Robson Kiyoshi Ishida
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Rogério Kuga
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
,
Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit of Hospital das Clínicas of São Paulo University, São Paulo 05403-000, São Paulo, Brazil.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 16 August 2017

accepted after revision 08 January 2018

Publication Date:
25 May 2018 (online)

Abstract

Objectives To compare the insufflation of CO2 and ambient air in enteroscopy.

Search sources The investigators researched the electronic databases MedLine, Cochrane Library, Central, LILACS, BVS, Scopus and Cinahl. The grey search was conducted in the base of theses of the University of São Paulo, books of digestive endoscopy and references of selected articles and in previous systematic revisions.

Study eligibility criteria The evaluation of eligibility was performed independently, in a non-blind manner, by two reviewers, firstly by title and abstract, followed by complete text. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by consensus.

Data collection and analysis method Through the spreadsheet of data extraction, where one author extracted the data and a second author checked the extraction. Disagreements were resolved by debate between the two reviewers. The quality analysis of the studies was performed using the Jadad score. The software RevMan 5 version 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis.

Results Four randomized clinical trials were identified, totaling 473 patients submitted to enteroscopy and comparing insufflation of CO2 and ambient air. There was no statistical difference in the intubation depth between the two groups. When CO2 insufflation was reduced, there was a significant difference in pain levels 1 hour after the procedure (95 % IC, –2.49 [–4.72, –0.26], P: 0.03, I2: 20%) and 3 hours after the procedure (95% IC, –3.05 [–5.92, –0.18], P: 0.04, I2: 0 %). There was a usage of lower propofol dosage in the CO2 insufflation group, with significant difference (95 % IC, –67.68 [–115.53, –19.84], P: 0.006, I2: 0 %). There was no significant difference between the groups in relation to the use of pethidine and to the oxygen saturation.

Limitations Restricted number of randomized clinical trials and nonuniformity of data were limitations to the analysis of the outcomes.

Conclusion The use of CO2 as insufflation gas in enteroscopy reduces the pain levels 1 hour and 3 hours after the procedure, in addition to the reduction of the sedation (propofol) dosage used.