Background and study aims: Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation has previously been shown to have advantages over air insufflation in terms of procedure-related pain and oral insertion depth during double-balloon enteroscopy. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the performance of CO2 vs. air insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy.
Patients and methods: This study was a randomized European multicenter trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01524055). Patients and endoscopists were blinded to the type of insufflation gas used. Patient discomfort during and after the procedure was scored using a visual analog scale.
Results: A total of 107 patients were enrolled in the study (52 in the CO2 group and 55 in the air group). Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. The mean (±SD) oral intubation depth was not significantly deeper in the CO2 group vs. the air group (254±80 vs. 238±55 cm; P=0.726). However, in patients with previous abdominal surgery, oral intubation depth was significantly higher in the CO2 group compared with the air group (258±84 vs. 192±42 cm; P<0.05). In patients undergoing SBE via the anal approach, CO2 showed no significant difference in intubation depth compared with air insufflation (86±67 vs. 110±68 cm; P=0.155). The diagnostic yield was comparable (CO2 67%; air 73%). Procedure times, dosage of sedation, and therapeutic interventions did not differ between the two groups. Patients in the CO2 group reported less pain than those in the air group.
Conclusions: This study demonstrated an advantage of using CO2 insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy in patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery. Overall, single-balloon enteroscopy was a well-tolerated procedure that may benefit from the use of CO2 insufflation to reduce post-procedural pain.
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.