-
Something wrong with this record ?
Combination of water immersion and carbon dioxide insufflation for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-center trial
P. Falt, M. Liberda, V. Smajstrla, M. Kliment, A. Bártková, J. Tvrdík, P. Fojtík, O. Urban,
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial
- MeSH
- Conscious Sedation MeSH
- Abdominal Pain etiology MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Flatulence etiology MeSH
- Insufflation MeSH
- Colonoscopy methods MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Carbon Dioxide administration & dosage MeSH
- Immersion MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Patient Satisfaction MeSH
- Water MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
OBJECTIVE: Water immersion insertion and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, as alternative colonoscopic techniques, are able to reduce patient discomfort during and after the procedure. We assessed whether the combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation is superior in efficacy and patient comfort to other colonoscopic techniques. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized study, a total of 420 patients were randomized to either water immersion insertion and CO2 insufflation during withdrawal (water/CO2), water insertion and air insufflation during withdrawal (water/air), CO2 insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (CO2/CO2), or air insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (air/air). The main outcome was the success of minimal sedation colonoscopy, which was defined as reaching the cecum without switching to another insertion method and without additional sedation beyond the initial 2 mg of midazolam. Patient comfort during and after the procedure was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 404 patients were analyzed. The success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy in the water insertion arm (water/CO2 and water/air) was 97% compared with 83.3% in the gas insertion arm (CO2/CO2 and air/air; P<0.0001). Intraprocedural pain and bloating were significantly lower in the water/CO2 group than in all other groups. Patient discomfort in the water/CO2 group during 24 h after the procedure was comparable with that in the CO2/CO2 group and significantly lower than that in the air groups (water/air and air/air). No complications were recorded during the study. CONCLUSION: The combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation appears to be an effective and safe method for minimal sedation colonoscopy. Overall patient discomfort was significantly reduced compared with that in other techniques.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc13000832
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20241120112145.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 130108s2012 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1097/meg.0b013e3283543f16 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)22569079
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Falt, Přemysl $u Digestive Diseases Center, Vítkovice Hospital, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic. faltprem@centrum.cz
- 245 10
- $a Combination of water immersion and carbon dioxide insufflation for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-center trial / $c P. Falt, M. Liberda, V. Smajstrla, M. Kliment, A. Bártková, J. Tvrdík, P. Fojtík, O. Urban,
- 520 9_
- $a OBJECTIVE: Water immersion insertion and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, as alternative colonoscopic techniques, are able to reduce patient discomfort during and after the procedure. We assessed whether the combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation is superior in efficacy and patient comfort to other colonoscopic techniques. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized study, a total of 420 patients were randomized to either water immersion insertion and CO2 insufflation during withdrawal (water/CO2), water insertion and air insufflation during withdrawal (water/air), CO2 insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (CO2/CO2), or air insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (air/air). The main outcome was the success of minimal sedation colonoscopy, which was defined as reaching the cecum without switching to another insertion method and without additional sedation beyond the initial 2 mg of midazolam. Patient comfort during and after the procedure was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 404 patients were analyzed. The success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy in the water insertion arm (water/CO2 and water/air) was 97% compared with 83.3% in the gas insertion arm (CO2/CO2 and air/air; P<0.0001). Intraprocedural pain and bloating were significantly lower in the water/CO2 group than in all other groups. Patient discomfort in the water/CO2 group during 24 h after the procedure was comparable with that in the CO2/CO2 group and significantly lower than that in the air groups (water/air and air/air). No complications were recorded during the study. CONCLUSION: The combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation appears to be an effective and safe method for minimal sedation colonoscopy. Overall patient discomfort was significantly reduced compared with that in other techniques.
- 650 _2
- $a bolesti břicha $x etiologie $7 D015746
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a oxid uhličitý $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D002245
- 650 _2
- $a kolonoskopie $x metody $7 D003113
- 650 _2
- $a analgosedace $7 D016292
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a flatulence $x etiologie $7 D005414
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a ponoření $7 D007101
- 650 _2
- $a insuflace $7 D007327
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a spokojenost pacientů $7 D017060
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a voda $7 D014867
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
- 700 1_
- $a Liberda, Martin
- 700 1_
- $a Smajstrla, Vít
- 700 1_
- $a Kliment, Martin
- 700 1_
- $a Bártková, Alice $7 xx0325003
- 700 1_
- $a Tvrdík, Josef
- 700 1_
- $a Fojtík, Petr
- 700 1_
- $a Urban, Ondřej
- 773 0_
- $w MED00001618 $t European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology $x 1473-5687 $g Roč. 24, č. 8 (2012), s. 971-7
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22569079 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20130108 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20241120112139 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 963614 $s 798996
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2012 $b 24 $c 8 $d 971-7 $i 1473-5687 $m European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology $n Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol $x MED00001618
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20130108