Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Carbon Dioxide Insufflation or Warm-Water Infusion Versus Standard Air Insufflation for Unsedated Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Amato, Arnaldo M.D.; Radaelli, Franco M.D.; Paggi, Silvia M.D.; Baccarin, Alessandra M.D.; Spinzi, Giancarlo M.D.; Terruzzi, Vittorio M.D.

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum: April 2013 - Volume 56 - Issue 4 - p 511–518
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e318279addd
Original Contribution: Endoscopy

BACKGROUND: The increasing demand for colonoscopy has renewed the interest for unsedated procedures. Alternative techniques, such as carbon dioxide insufflation and warm-water infusion, have been advocated to improve patient tolerance for colonoscopy in comparison with air insufflation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of carbon dioxide insufflation and warm-water irrigation over air insufflation in unsedated patients.

DESIGN: This study was a randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING: This study was conducted at a nonacademic single center.

PATIENTS: Consecutive outpatients agreeing to start colonoscopy without premedication were included.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to either carbon dioxide insufflation, warm-water irrigation, or air insufflation colonoscopy insertion phase. Sedation/analgesia were administered on patient request if significant pain or discomfort occurred.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was the percentage of patients requiring sedation/analgesia. Pain and tolerance scores were assessed at discharge by using a 100-mm visual analog scale.

RESULTS: Three hundred forty-one subjects (115 in the carbon dioxide, 113 in the warm-water, and 113 in the air group) were enrolled. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the proportion of patients requesting sedation/analgesia during colonoscopy was 15.5% in the carbon dioxide group, 13.2% in the warm-water group, and 25.6% in the air group (p = 0.04 carbon dioxide vs air; p = 0.03 warm water vs air). Median (interquartile range) scores for pain were 30 (10–50), 28 (15–50), and 46 (22–62) in the carbon dioxide, warm-water, and air groups (carbon dioxide vs air, p < 0.01; warm water vs air, p < 0.01); corresponding figures for tolerance were 20 (5–30), 19 (5–36), and 28 (10–50) (carbon dioxide vs air, p < 0.01; warm water vs air, p < 0.01).

LIMITATIONS: This investigation was limited because it was a single-center study and the endoscopists were not blinded to randomization.

CONCLUSIONS: Carbon dioxide insufflation was associated with a decrease in the proportion of patients requesting on-demand sedation, improved patient tolerance, and decreased colonoscopy-related pain in comparison with air insufflation. The findings regarding warm-water irrigation confirmed the previously reported advantages, so that warm-water irrigation and carbon dioxide insufflation could represent competitive strategies for colonoscopy in unsedated patients.

Division of Gastroenterology, Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy

Financial Disclosures: None reported.

Clinical Trial Registration: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01259583.

Correspondence: Arnaldo Amato, M.D., Divisione di Gastroenterologia, Ospedale Valduce, Via Dante 11, 22100 Como, Italy. E-mail: arnalam@alice.it

© The ASCRS 2013