Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/73372
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSingh, R.-
dc.contributor.authorNeo, E.-
dc.contributor.authorNordeen, N.-
dc.contributor.authorShanmuganathan, G.-
dc.contributor.authorAshby, A.-
dc.contributor.authorDrummond, S.-
dc.contributor.authorNind, G.-
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, E.-
dc.contributor.authorLuck, A.-
dc.contributor.authorTucker, G.-
dc.contributor.authorTan, W.-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.citationWorld Journal of Gastroenterology, 2012; 18(25):3250-3253-
dc.identifier.issn1007-9327-
dc.identifier.issn2219-2840-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/73372-
dc.description.abstractAIM: To compare the impact of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and air insufflation on patient tolerance/safety in deeply sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients referred for colonoscopy were randomized to receive either CO₂ or air insufflation during the procedure. Both the colonoscopist and patient were blinded to the type of gas used. During the procedure, insertion and withdrawal times, caecal intubation rates, total sedation given and capnography readings were recorded. The level of sedation and magnitude of patient discomfort during the procedure was assessed by a nurse using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-3). Patients then graded their level of discomfort and abdominal bloating using a similar VAS. Complications during and after the procedure were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were randomized with 72 in the air arm and 70 in the CO₂ arm. Mean age between the two study groups were similar. Insertion time to the caecum was quicker in the CO₂ group at 7.3 min vs 9.9 min with air (P = 0.0083). The average withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups. Caecal intubation rates were 94.4% and 100% in the air and CO₂ groups respectively (P = 0.012). The level of discomfort assessed by the nurse was 0.69 (air) and 0.39 (CO₂) (P = 0.0155) and by the patient 0.82 (air) and 0.46 (CO₂) (P = 0.0228). The level of abdominal bloating was 0.97 (air) and 0.36 (CO₂) (P = 0.001). Capnography readings trended to be higher in the CO₂ group at the commencement, caecal intubation, and conclusion of the procedure, even though this was not significantly different when compared to readings obtained during air insufflation. There were no complications in both arms. CONCLUSION: CO₂ insufflation during colonoscopy is more efficacious than air, allowing quicker and better cecal intubation rates. Abdominal discomfort and bloating were significantly less with CO₂ insufflation.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityR. Singh, E.N. Neo, N. Nordeen, G. Shanmuganathan, A. Ashby, S. Drummond, G. Nind, E. Murphy, A. Luck, G. Tucker and W. Tam-
dc.description.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22783048-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherW J G Press-
dc.rights© 2012 Published by The WJG Press. All rights reserved-
dc.subjectHumans-
dc.subjectPain-
dc.subjectCarbon Dioxide-
dc.subjectColonoscopy-
dc.subjectPain Measurement-
dc.subjectCapnography-
dc.subjectInsufflation-
dc.subjectProspective Studies-
dc.subjectDouble-Blind Method-
dc.subjectAir-
dc.subjectAdult-
dc.subjectAged-
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over-
dc.subjectMiddle Aged-
dc.subjectSouth Australia-
dc.subjectFemale-
dc.subjectMale-
dc.subjectDeep Sedation-
dc.subjectYoung Adult-
dc.titleCarbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.3748/wjg.v18.i25.3250-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidTucker, G. [0000-0003-2621-5942]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest
Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.