Carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Abstract

Background and study aims Carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation has been suggested to be an ideal alternative to room air insufflation to reduce trapped air within the bowel lumen after balloon assisted enteroscopy (BAE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of utilizing CO₂ insufflation as compared to room air during BAE.

Patients and methods The primary outcome is mean change in visual analog scale (VAS; 10 cm) at 1, 3, and 6 hours to assess pain. Secondary outcomes include insertion depth (anterograde or retrograde), adverse events, total enteroscopy rate, diagnostic yield, mean anesthetic dosage, and PaCO₂ at procedure completion. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until May 2015. Multiple independent extractions were performed, the process was executed as per the standards of the Cochrane collaboration.

Results Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. VAS at 6 hours favored CO₂ over room air (MD 0.13; 95 % CI 0.01, 0.25; p = 0.03). Anterograde insertion depth (cm) was improved in the CO₂ group (MD, 58.2; 95 % CI 17.17, 99.23; p = 0.005), with an improvement in total enteroscopy rate in the CO₂ group (RR 1.91; 95 % CI 1.20, 3.06; p = 0.007). Mean dose of propofol (mg) favored CO₂ compared to air (MD, – 70.53; 95 % CI – 115.07, – 25.98; P = 0.002). There were no differences in adverse events in either group.

Conclusions Despite the ability of CO₂ to improve insertion depth and decrease amount of anesthesia required, further randomized control trials are needed to determine the agent of choice for insufflation in balloon assisted enteroscopy.

• References

• 1 Domagk D, Mensink P, Aktas H. et al. Single- vs. double-balloon enteroscopy in small-bowel diagnostics: a randomized multicenter trial. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 472-476
• 2 Bretthauer M, Hoff GS, Thiis-Evensen E. et al. Air and carbon dioxide volumes insufflated during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 203-206
• 3 Dellon ES, Velayudham A, Clarke BW. et al. A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of air vs carbon dioxide insufflation during ERCP. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2010; 72: 68-77
• 4 Church J, Delaney C. Randomized, controlled trial of carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 322-326
• 5 Wang WL, Wu ZH, Sun Q. et al. Meta-analysis: the use of carbon dioxide insufflation vs. room air insufflation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35: 1145-1154
• 6 Domagk D, Bretthauer M, Lenz P. et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation improves intubation depth in double-balloon enteroscopy: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 1064-1067
• 7 Hirai F, Beppu T, Nishimura T. et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation compared with air insufflation in double-balloon enteroscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 743-749
• 8 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M. et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 1997; 315: 629-634
• 9 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled clinical trials 1986; 7: 177-188
• 10 Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ. et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2011; 64: 401-406
• 11 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R. et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2011; 64: 1283-1293
• 12 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R. et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1294-1302
• 13 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V. et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1277-1282
• 14 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G. et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence – study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 407-415
• 15 Moher D, Altman DG, Liberati A. et al. PRISMA statement. Epidemiology 2011; 22: 128 ; author reply 128
• 16 Li X, Zhao YJ, Dai J. et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation improves the intubation depth and total enteroscopy rate in single-balloon enteroscopy: a randomised, controlled, double-blind trial. Gut 2014; 63: 1560-1565
• 17 Lenz P, Meister T, Manno M. et al. CO2 insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 53-58
• 18 Ishizaki Y, Bandai Y, Shimomura K. et al. Safe intraabdominal pressure of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 1993; 114: 549-554
• 19 Sanaka MR, Navaneethan U, Kosuru B. et al. Antegrade is more effective than retrograde enteroscopy for evaluation and management of suspected small-bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 910-916