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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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