Effects of carbon dioxide insufflation in balloon-assisted enteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Toshihiro Nishizawa, Hidekazu Suzuki, Ai Fujimoto, Yasutoshi Ochiai, Takanori Kanai, Naohisa Yahagi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and aim: The efficacy of CO2 insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CO2 insufflation was compared with air insufflation in balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database were searched to identify RCTs eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Four RCTs (461 patients) were identified. Compared with air insufflation, CO2 insufflation significantly increased intubation depth of oral enteroscopy (WMD: 55.2, 95% CI: 10.77–99.65, p=0.015). However, there was significant heterogeneity. The intubation depth of anal enteroscopy showed no significant difference between the CO2 group and the air group. CO2 insufflation significantly reduced abdominal pain compared with air insufflation (WMD: -2.463, 95% CI: -4.452 to -0.474, p=0.015), without significant heterogeneity. The PaCO2 or end-tidal CO2 level showed no significant difference between the CO2 group and air group. Conclusions: Compared with air insufflation, CO2 insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy caused less postprocedural pain without CO2 retention

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)11-17
Number of pages7
JournalUnited European Gastroenterology Journal
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Insufflation
Carbon Dioxide
Meta-Analysis
Air
Randomized Controlled Trials
Confidence Intervals
Intubation
Balloon Enteroscopy
PubMed
Abdominal Pain
Libraries
Odds Ratio
Databases
Pain

Keywords

  • Balloon-assisted enteroscopy
  • Carbon dioxide
  • Meta-analysis
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Oncology

Cite this

Effects of carbon dioxide insufflation in balloon-assisted enteroscopy : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Nishizawa, Toshihiro; Suzuki, Hidekazu; Fujimoto, Ai; Ochiai, Yasutoshi; Kanai, Takanori; Yahagi, Naohisa.

In: United European Gastroenterology Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 11-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3aad79100573442681b4f66346f0771f,
title = "Effects of carbon dioxide insufflation in balloon-assisted enteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background and aim: The efficacy of CO2 insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CO2 insufflation was compared with air insufflation in balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database were searched to identify RCTs eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95{\%} confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Four RCTs (461 patients) were identified. Compared with air insufflation, CO2 insufflation significantly increased intubation depth of oral enteroscopy (WMD: 55.2, 95{\%} CI: 10.77–99.65, p=0.015). However, there was significant heterogeneity. The intubation depth of anal enteroscopy showed no significant difference between the CO2 group and the air group. CO2 insufflation significantly reduced abdominal pain compared with air insufflation (WMD: -2.463, 95{\%} CI: -4.452 to -0.474, p=0.015), without significant heterogeneity. The PaCO2 or end-tidal CO2 level showed no significant difference between the CO2 group and air group. Conclusions: Compared with air insufflation, CO2 insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy caused less postprocedural pain without CO2 retention",
keywords = "Balloon-assisted enteroscopy, Carbon dioxide, Meta-analysis, Systematic review",
author = "Toshihiro Nishizawa and Hidekazu Suzuki and Ai Fujimoto and Yasutoshi Ochiai and Takanori Kanai and Naohisa Yahagi",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/2050640615588024",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "11--17",
journal = "United European Gastroenterology Journal",
issn = "2050-6406",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of carbon dioxide insufflation in balloon-assisted enteroscopy

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Nishizawa, Toshihiro

AU - Suzuki, Hidekazu

AU - Fujimoto, Ai

AU - Ochiai, Yasutoshi

AU - Kanai, Takanori

AU - Yahagi, Naohisa

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Background and aim: The efficacy of CO2 insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CO2 insufflation was compared with air insufflation in balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database were searched to identify RCTs eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Four RCTs (461 patients) were identified. Compared with air insufflation, CO2 insufflation significantly increased intubation depth of oral enteroscopy (WMD: 55.2, 95% CI: 10.77–99.65, p=0.015). However, there was significant heterogeneity. The intubation depth of anal enteroscopy showed no significant difference between the CO2 group and the air group. CO2 insufflation significantly reduced abdominal pain compared with air insufflation (WMD: -2.463, 95% CI: -4.452 to -0.474, p=0.015), without significant heterogeneity. The PaCO2 or end-tidal CO2 level showed no significant difference between the CO2 group and air group. Conclusions: Compared with air insufflation, CO2 insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy caused less postprocedural pain without CO2 retention

AB - Background and aim: The efficacy of CO2 insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CO2 insufflation was compared with air insufflation in balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database were searched to identify RCTs eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Four RCTs (461 patients) were identified. Compared with air insufflation, CO2 insufflation significantly increased intubation depth of oral enteroscopy (WMD: 55.2, 95% CI: 10.77–99.65, p=0.015). However, there was significant heterogeneity. The intubation depth of anal enteroscopy showed no significant difference between the CO2 group and the air group. CO2 insufflation significantly reduced abdominal pain compared with air insufflation (WMD: -2.463, 95% CI: -4.452 to -0.474, p=0.015), without significant heterogeneity. The PaCO2 or end-tidal CO2 level showed no significant difference between the CO2 group and air group. Conclusions: Compared with air insufflation, CO2 insufflation during balloon-assisted enteroscopy caused less postprocedural pain without CO2 retention

KW - Balloon-assisted enteroscopy

KW - Carbon dioxide

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979464856&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979464856&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/2050640615588024

DO - 10.1177/2050640615588024

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84979464856

VL - 4

SP - 11

EP - 17

JO - United European Gastroenterology Journal

JF - United European Gastroenterology Journal

SN - 2050-6406

IS - 1

ER -