IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0177909.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

CO2 insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Xuan Li
  • Hao Dong
  • Yifeng Zhang
  • Guoxin Zhang

Abstract

Background: Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation is increasingly used for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) owing to the faster absorption of CO2 as compared to that of air. Studies comparing CO2 insufflation and air insufflation have reported conflicting results. Objectives: This meta-analysis is aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of use of CO2 insufflation for ESD. Methods: Clinical trials of CO2 insufflation versus air insufflation for ESD were searched in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results: Eleven studies which compared the use of CO2 insufflation and air insufflation, with a combined study population of 1026 patients, were included in the meta-analysis (n = 506 for CO2 insufflation; n = 522 for air insufflation). Abdominal pain and VAS scores at 6h and 24h post-procedure in the CO2 insufflation group were significantly lower than those in the air insufflation group, but not at 1h and 3h after ESD. The percentage of patients who experienced pain 1h and 24h post-procedure was obviously decreased. Use of CO2 insufflation was associated with lower VAS scores for abdominal distention at 1h after ESD, but not at 24h after ESD. However, no significant differences were observed with respect to postoperative transcutaneous partial pressure carbon dioxide (PtcCO2), arterial blood carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2), oxygen saturation (SpO2%), abdominal circumference, hospital stay, white blood cell (WBC) counts, C-Reactive protein (CRP) level, dosage of sedatives used, incidence of dysphagia and other complications. Conclusion: Use of CO2 insufflation for ESD was safe and effective with regard to abdominal discomfort, procedure time, and the residual gas volume. However, there appeared no significant differences with respect to other parameters namely, PtcCO2, PaCO2, SpO2%, abdominal circumference, hospital stay, sedation dosage, complications, WBC, CRP, and dysphagia.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuan Li & Hao Dong & Yifeng Zhang & Guoxin Zhang, 2017. "CO2 insufflation versus air insufflation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-13, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177909
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177909
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177909&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0177909?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177909. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.