-
Something wrong with this record ?
Cool water vs warm water immersion for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a double-blind randomized trial
P. Falt, V. Šmajstrla, P. Fojtík, J. Tvrdík, O. Urban,
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial
PubMed
23819909
DOI
10.1111/codi.12336
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Abdominal Pain etiology MeSH
- Time Factors MeSH
- Cecum MeSH
- Operative Time MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Double-Blind Method MeSH
- Hypnotics and Sedatives administration & dosage MeSH
- Catheterization * MeSH
- Colonoscopy adverse effects methods MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Temperature * 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
AIM: Water-aided insertion as an alternative colonoscopy technique reduces patient discomfort. Warm water has been used in most published trials, but the use of cool water is easier and, if equally effective, could support the use of the water-aided technique in routine practice. METHOD: A double-blind, randomized, single-centre study was performed in which 201 patients were randomized to either cool (20-24 °C) or warm (37 °C) water immersion insertion. The primary outcome was caecal intubation time. The success rate of minimal sedation and patient discomfort were also assessed. RESULTS: The caecal intubation time for cool and warm water was similar (6.9 ± 3.5 vs 7.0 ± 3.4 min, P = 0.64). The respective success rates of minimal sedation colonoscopy (89.1% vs 90%, P = 1.00) and discomfort (P = 0.51) were no different. All other outcomes except a greater need for abdominal compression in the cool water arm (P = 0.04) were similar including the total procedure time, terminal ileum intubation rate, adenoma detection, length of the inserted scope, water volume, non-standard position rate, difficulty of the procedure and the patient's temperature sensation. CONCLUSION: The use of cool water did not modify the caecal intubation time compared with warm water. Exception for abdominal compression, all other end-points were no different. Cool water immersion is an alternative to the technically more demanding warm water immersion colonoscopy.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc15008601
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20150316120643.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 150306s2013 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1111/codi.12336 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)23819909
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Falt, P $u Digestive Diseases Centre, Vítkovice Hospital, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
- 245 10
- $a Cool water vs warm water immersion for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a double-blind randomized trial / $c P. Falt, V. Šmajstrla, P. Fojtík, J. Tvrdík, O. Urban,
- 520 9_
- $a AIM: Water-aided insertion as an alternative colonoscopy technique reduces patient discomfort. Warm water has been used in most published trials, but the use of cool water is easier and, if equally effective, could support the use of the water-aided technique in routine practice. METHOD: A double-blind, randomized, single-centre study was performed in which 201 patients were randomized to either cool (20-24 °C) or warm (37 °C) water immersion insertion. The primary outcome was caecal intubation time. The success rate of minimal sedation and patient discomfort were also assessed. RESULTS: The caecal intubation time for cool and warm water was similar (6.9 ± 3.5 vs 7.0 ± 3.4 min, P = 0.64). The respective success rates of minimal sedation colonoscopy (89.1% vs 90%, P = 1.00) and discomfort (P = 0.51) were no different. All other outcomes except a greater need for abdominal compression in the cool water arm (P = 0.04) were similar including the total procedure time, terminal ileum intubation rate, adenoma detection, length of the inserted scope, water volume, non-standard position rate, difficulty of the procedure and the patient's temperature sensation. CONCLUSION: The use of cool water did not modify the caecal intubation time compared with warm water. Exception for abdominal compression, all other end-points were no different. Cool water immersion is an alternative to the technically more demanding warm water immersion colonoscopy.
- 650 _2
- $a bolesti břicha $x etiologie $7 D015746
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 12
- $a katetrizace $7 D002404
- 650 _2
- $a cékum $7 D002432
- 650 _2
- $a kolonoskopie $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D003113
- 650 _2
- $a dvojitá slepá metoda $7 D004311
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a hypnotika a sedativa $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D006993
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a délka operace $7 D061646
- 650 12
- $a teplota $7 D013696
- 650 _2
- $a časové faktory $7 D013997
- 650 _2
- $a voda $7 D014867
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
- 700 1_
- $a Šmajstrla, V
- 700 1_
- $a Fojtík, P
- 700 1_
- $a Tvrdík, J
- 700 1_
- $a Urban, O
- 773 0_
- $w MED00173420 $t Colorectal disease the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland $x 1463-1318 $g Roč. 15, č. 10 (2013), s. e612-7
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23819909 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20150306 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20150316120925 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1065874 $s 891401
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2013 $b 15 $c 10 $d e612-7 $i 1463-1318 $m Colorectal disease $n Colorectal Dis $x MED00173420
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20150306