Carbon dioxide insufflation reduces residual gas in the gastrointestinal tract following colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Abstract

Abstract. Quantitative examinations evaluating the effects of CO 2 insufflation on residual gas in the gastrointestinal tract following colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. The present study aimed to assess whether CO 2 insufflation could decrease the amount of residual gas in the gastrointestinal tract following ESD in patients with colorectal neoplasms. Computed tomography (CT) was used to objectively examine whether CO 2 insufflation during colorectal ESD reduced residual gas levels in the gastrointestinal tract following ESD. A total of 83 patients who underwent colorectal ESD between January and December 2009 at Gifu University Hospital (Gifu, Japan) were enrolled. Following exclusion of 17 patients with chronic pulmonary dysfunction, 66 patients were randomized into a CO 2 insufflation group (n=34) and an air insufflation group (n=32). The level of residual gas and the presence of transmural and free-air leaks following ESD were evaluated in both groups using CT. Transcutaneous CO 2 tension (PtcCO 2 ) and ESD-related complications were also compared between the groups. CT measurements of the major and minor axes of the cecal lumen, and of the terminal ileum diameter, indicated the level of residual gas following ESD to be significantly reduced in the CO 2 insufflation group compared with the air insufflation group (P<0.001). Neither the incidences of ESD-related complications, including post-procedure hemorrhage and air leak, nor the abnormalities in vital signs differed between the groups. No significant between-group differences were identified in the baseline and peak PtcCO 2 levels during ESD or in the median PtcCO 2 following ESD. In conclusion, CO 2 insufflation during colorectal ESD was effective in reducing residual gas in the gastrointestinal tract following ESD. IntroductionColorectal cancer is among the most prevalent malignancies worldwide, and therefore effective and minimally invasive procedures are required to reduce the incidence rate of this malignancy (1,2). More recently, utilization of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a minimally invasive treatment for en bloc resection of large superficial neoplasms has become a favored method (3). However, the risk of complication is higher than in gastric ESD as the wall of the colon is thin and operability is limited. In addition, colorectal ESD generally requires a long procedure time due to its technical difficulty (4,5). Therefore, a high level of gas enters the colonic lumen. This is associated with aggravation of subjective symptoms, such as abdominal pain, discomfort and distention, and an increased risk of severe problems, including pneumoderma, pneumothorax, abdominal compartment syndrome and air embolism (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14).The safety and efficacy of CO 2 insufflation during ESD for lesions of the esophagus and stomach have been demonstrated in several randomized controlled trials (15-21). A pilot study also reported that CO 2 insufflation was safe and effective during colorectal ES...

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

“…Although the use of CO2 insufflation has been demonstrated to be safe for use during colorectal ESD in patients under sedation, even in the setting of obstructive pulmonary diseases, few comparative studies have demonstrated its clinical impact (Table 7 s) [180,181]. In an RCT, CO2 insufflation significantly reduced residual gas in the gastrointestinal tract following colorectal ESD as compared to air insufflation (P < 0.001); this outcome was thought to be associated with less discomfort, although the incidence of ESD-related complications did not differ between groups [182]. An earlier systematic review and meta-analysis has shown that insufflation with CO2 in colonoscopy reduced abdominal discomfort during and after the procedure without any adverse reactions [183].…”