Cargando…

CO(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation is increasingly used for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) owing to the faster absorption of CO(2) as compared to that of air. Studies comparing CO(2) insufflation and air insufflation have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Xuan, Dong, Hao, Zhang, Yifeng, Zhang, Guoxin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443502/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28542645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177909
_version_ 1783238577556029440
author Li, Xuan
Dong, Hao
Zhang, Yifeng
Zhang, Guoxin
author_facet Li, Xuan
Dong, Hao
Zhang, Yifeng
Zhang, Guoxin
author_sort Li, Xuan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation is increasingly used for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) owing to the faster absorption of CO(2) as compared to that of air. Studies comparing CO(2) insufflation and air insufflation have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis is aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of use of CO(2) insufflation for ESD. METHODS: Clinical trials of CO(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for ESD were searched in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Eleven studies which compared the use of CO(2) insufflation and air insufflation, with a combined study population of 1026 patients, were included in the meta-analysis (n = 506 for CO(2) insufflation; n = 522 for air insufflation). Abdominal pain and VAS scores at 6h and 24h post-procedure in the CO(2) insufflation group were significantly lower than those in the air insufflation group, but not at 1h and 3h after ESD. The percentage of patients who experienced pain 1h and 24h post-procedure was obviously decreased. Use of CO(2) insufflation was associated with lower VAS scores for abdominal distention at 1h after ESD, but not at 24h after ESD. However, no significant differences were observed with respect to postoperative transcutaneous partial pressure carbon dioxide (PtcCO(2)), arterial blood carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO(2)), oxygen saturation (SpO(2)%), abdominal circumference, hospital stay, white blood cell (WBC) counts, C-Reactive protein (CRP) level, dosage of sedatives used, incidence of dysphagia and other complications. CONCLUSION: Use of CO(2) insufflation for ESD was safe and effective with regard to abdominal discomfort, procedure time, and the residual gas volume. However, there appeared no significant differences with respect to other parameters namely, PtcCO(2), PaCO(2), SpO(2)%, abdominal circumference, hospital stay, sedation dosage, complications, WBC, CRP, and dysphagia.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5443502
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54435022017-06-06 CO(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Li, Xuan Dong, Hao Zhang, Yifeng Zhang, Guoxin PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation is increasingly used for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) owing to the faster absorption of CO(2) as compared to that of air. Studies comparing CO(2) insufflation and air insufflation have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis is aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of use of CO(2) insufflation for ESD. METHODS: Clinical trials of CO(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for ESD were searched in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Eleven studies which compared the use of CO(2) insufflation and air insufflation, with a combined study population of 1026 patients, were included in the meta-analysis (n = 506 for CO(2) insufflation; n = 522 for air insufflation). Abdominal pain and VAS scores at 6h and 24h post-procedure in the CO(2) insufflation group were significantly lower than those in the air insufflation group, but not at 1h and 3h after ESD. The percentage of patients who experienced pain 1h and 24h post-procedure was obviously decreased. Use of CO(2) insufflation was associated with lower VAS scores for abdominal distention at 1h after ESD, but not at 24h after ESD. However, no significant differences were observed with respect to postoperative transcutaneous partial pressure carbon dioxide (PtcCO(2)), arterial blood carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO(2)), oxygen saturation (SpO(2)%), abdominal circumference, hospital stay, white blood cell (WBC) counts, C-Reactive protein (CRP) level, dosage of sedatives used, incidence of dysphagia and other complications. CONCLUSION: Use of CO(2) insufflation for ESD was safe and effective with regard to abdominal discomfort, procedure time, and the residual gas volume. However, there appeared no significant differences with respect to other parameters namely, PtcCO(2), PaCO(2), SpO(2)%, abdominal circumference, hospital stay, sedation dosage, complications, WBC, CRP, and dysphagia. Public Library of Science 2017-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5443502/ /pubmed/28542645 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177909 Text en © 2017 Li et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Li, Xuan
Dong, Hao
Zhang, Yifeng
Zhang, Guoxin
CO(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title CO(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full CO(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr CO(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed CO(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short CO(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort co(2) insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443502/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28542645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177909
work_keys_str_mv AT lixuan co2insufflationversusairinsufflationforendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT donghao co2insufflationversusairinsufflationforendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT zhangyifeng co2insufflationversusairinsufflationforendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT zhangguoxin co2insufflationversusairinsufflationforendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials