Cargando…
Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials
OBJECTIVES: To compare the insufflation of CO (2) 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 P...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2018
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5979198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29868627 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0574-2357 |
_version_ | 1783327642988052480 |
---|---|
author | Aquino, Julio Cesar Martins Bernardo, Wanderley Marques de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux Morita, Flávio Hiroshi Ananias Rocha, Rodrigo Silva de Paula Minata, Maurício Kazuyoshi Coronel, Martin Rodela, Gustavo Luís da Silva Ishida, Robson Kiyoshi Kuga, Rogério de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux |
author_facet | Aquino, Julio Cesar Martins Bernardo, Wanderley Marques de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux Morita, Flávio Hiroshi Ananias Rocha, Rodrigo Silva de Paula Minata, Maurício Kazuyoshi Coronel, Martin Rodela, Gustavo Luís da Silva Ishida, Robson Kiyoshi Kuga, Rogério de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux |
author_sort | Aquino, Julio Cesar Martins |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To compare the insufflation of CO (2) 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 CO (2) and ambient air. There was no statistical difference in the intubation depth between the two groups. When CO (2) 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, I (2) : 20%) and 3 hours after the procedure (95% IC, –3.05 [–5.92, –0.18], P : 0.04, I (2) : 0 %). There was a usage of lower propofol dosage in the CO (2) insufflation group, with significant difference (95 % IC, –67.68 [–115.53, –19.84], P : 0.006, I (2) : 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 CO (2) 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5979198 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | © Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59791982018-06-04 Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials Aquino, Julio Cesar Martins Bernardo, Wanderley Marques de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux Morita, Flávio Hiroshi Ananias Rocha, Rodrigo Silva de Paula Minata, Maurício Kazuyoshi Coronel, Martin Rodela, Gustavo Luís da Silva Ishida, Robson Kiyoshi Kuga, Rogério de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux Endosc Int Open OBJECTIVES: To compare the insufflation of CO (2) 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 CO (2) and ambient air. There was no statistical difference in the intubation depth between the two groups. When CO (2) 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, I (2) : 20%) and 3 hours after the procedure (95% IC, –3.05 [–5.92, –0.18], P : 0.04, I (2) : 0 %). There was a usage of lower propofol dosage in the CO (2) insufflation group, with significant difference (95 % IC, –67.68 [–115.53, –19.84], P : 0.006, I (2) : 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 CO (2) 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. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018-06 2018-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5979198/ /pubmed/29868627 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0574-2357 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Aquino, Julio Cesar Martins Bernardo, Wanderley Marques de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux Morita, Flávio Hiroshi Ananias Rocha, Rodrigo Silva de Paula Minata, Maurício Kazuyoshi Coronel, Martin Rodela, Gustavo Luís da Silva Ishida, Robson Kiyoshi Kuga, Rogério de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials |
title | Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials |
title_full | Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials |
title_fullStr | Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials |
title_short | Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials |
title_sort | carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5979198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29868627 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0574-2357 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aquinojuliocesarmartins carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT bernardowanderleymarques carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT demouradiogoturianihourneaux carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT moritaflaviohiroshiananias carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT rocharodrigosilvadepaula carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT minatamauriciokazuyoshi carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT coronelmartin carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT rodelagustavoluisdasilva carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT ishidarobsonkiyoshi carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT kugarogerio carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT demouraeduardoguimaraeshourneaux carbondioxideversusairinsufflationenteroscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisbasedonrandomizedcontrolledtrials |