Skip to content

Safety and Efficacy of CO2 for Endoscopy

The Safety and Efficacy of Carbon Dioxide for Insufflation During Endoscopy in Pediatric Patients

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03287687
Enrollment
180
Registered
2017-09-19
Start date
2017-11-27
Completion date
2019-04-09
Last updated
2022-01-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Endoscopy, Insufflation

Brief summary

Hypothesis: Carbon dioxide gas use for endoscopic insufflation is safe and results in less abdominal distension and discomfort; it is equally effective as air in pediatric patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. Aim 1: Determine the occurrence and severity of abdominal discomfort and distension associated with endoscopic procedures at baseline, upon awakening from anesthesia, at discharge and at 4 hours after discharge in carbon dioxide group when compared to the air group. Aim 2: Determine if the expertise level of the endoscopist contributes to abdominal discomfort and distension following endoscopy, and whether this differs in the carbon dioxide group versus air group. Aim 3: Determine if carbon dioxide is as effective as air for insufflation.

Detailed description

STUDY DESIGN: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Controlled Trial We intend to enroll 250 patients aged between 6 months and 21 years in a randomized, double-blind study comparing the use of air (our current routine) vs. carbon dioxide (CO2) for insufflation (inflation) of the gut during endoscopy. The primary endpoint will be abdominal girth and abdominal pain/discomfort after undergoing the endoscopy. Secondary endpoints will be indirect measures of CO2 absorption (respiratory rate and end-tidal CO2)throughout the procedure, determination whether the endoscopist's training level influences the primary endpoint,and determination if CO2 and air are equally effective for adequate intestinal visualization . Similar studies in adults have demonstrated safety and efficacy of CO2 in minimizing bloating and abdominal pain following endoscopy and show no difference in efficacy of insufflation. However, studies done to date in children have not been comprehensive in data gathering and analysis. We now have the capability to routinely use CO2 for insufflation in our new Stead Family Children's Hospital procedure unit, and wish to take this opportunity to fully document both efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation in children undergoing our most common endoscopic procedures, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD, upper endoscopy,) colonoscopy, or combined upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. All patients in the study will be sedated by the anesthesia team using propofol as the primary agent. We will exclude patients who are judged to be at risk of respiratory compromise. Informed consent will be obtained as always for the procedure itself; additional consent and/ assent (when appropriate) will be obtained for study participation. For patients or parents who opt out of the study; air will be used, as per our current routine, for insufflation. Those willing to participate in the study will be randomly assigned to either carbon dioxide or air for insufflation during their endoscopic procedure. Both the endoscopist and patient will be blinded to arm of study. DATA COLLECTION: At baseline, routine vital signs (HR, BP, RR, oxygen saturation), end tidal CO2, and pain assessment (see below) will be documented. Abdominal girth, measured at the umbilicus, will be documented at baseline as well. The expertise level of the primary endoscopist will be noted; fellow (1st, 2nd, or 3rd year) or faculty will be recorded. A faculty gastroenterologist will be present for the entire procedure. During the endoscopic procedure, again as per our usual routine, end-tidal CO2 will be continuously monitored and recorded in Epic by the anesthesia team. Other parameters that will be monitored and recorded continuously will include, HR, BP respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation. Based on published studies, we do not anticipate any evidence of detectable CO2 absorption during the procedure, but will be prepared to unblind the study and switch to air insufflation if any concern arises during the procedure. The duration and type of procedure will be noted for all patients. At the end of the procedure, Heart rate (HR) , Blood pressure (BP), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation, end tidal CO2, abdominal girth, and pain assessment will be documented again. Breath to breath analysis of the end tidal CO2 monitor tracing will be performed later, using recorded data, study by Dr. Timothy Starner (Pediatric pulmonologist). This will enable us to determine if there had been any evidence of an increased respiratory rate associated with increased CO2 absorption. We will use the verbal scale : face, legs, activity, cry, consolability (FLACC) scale to assess pain upon arrival to recovery area. After awakening, abdominal discomfort will be assessed for children who are able to do so, and the assessment will be repeated at discharge from the facility. FLACC will be used for all children with appropriate developmental status, age 5 years and older for normal children. After discharge, the parents will complete an additional brief pain assessment at home at 4 hours after discharge. For those who had an abdominal girth increase of at least 10% from baseline, abdominal girth will be re-measured at home, at 4 hours after discharge. We will use the non-verbal FLACC scale for children unable to verbally report pain using the visual scale. Parents will report pain and abdominal girth data done at home by returning a pre-stamped postcard. Those who do not communicate this information will be called by a member of the research team for this information after five working days. We hypothesize, based on adult and few pediatric studies, that post-procedure abdominal discomfort will be significantly decreased in the CO2 group, and that CO2 will be shown to be safe and effective for endoscopic insufflation. Efficacy of insufflation will be assessed by the endoscopist immediately after the procedure using a 5-point Likert scale.

Interventions

CO2 gas use for insufflation during endoscopy instead of air insufflation

Air insufflation is the standard of practice (used in the control arm)

Sponsors

Warren Bishop
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

Randomization will be done 1:1, double blinded. - Procedure nurse will randomly choose an envelope from a box; the envelope contains a card listing either CO2 or Air. The envelopes will be unmarked and will be prepared with an equal number of cards for each arm. The procedure nurse then turns on either CO2 or air insufflation according to the card in the envelope. The air/CO2 controls will be kept covered to preserve blinding of the endoscopist. She will also record the patient's arm allocation in a logbook, which will be kept in a locked cabinet. * These events will precede entry of the patient and endoscopist into the procedure room. * Therefore, all study participants are blinded and allocation is also blinded also.

Intervention model description

Double blinded, placebo controlled study

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
6 Months to 21 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Pediatric gastroenterology patients aged 6 months through 21 years undergoing endoscopic procedures in the Stead Family Children's Hospital (SFCH) Lower Level 2 procedure room or the operating room in the SFCH who willingly consent/ascent to the study. These procedures will range from Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, Colonoscopy, and those having both Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy.

Exclusion criteria

* Non English speaking families who require the services of a translator Children outside the stipulated age range of study. Children in foster care homes or wards of the court. Children and parents who do not willingly consent to the study Children with history of bronchopulmonary dysplasia or other chronic respiratory compromise.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Abdominal DistensionMean change in abdominal girth between time points were compared between groupsChange in abdominal girth from baseline to end of procedure (Time Difference 1) or Change in abdominal girth from baseline to time of discharge ((Time Difference 2)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Elevations of End Tidal Carbon DioxideTime frame of monitoring from start to end of procedure (average of 12 minutes for EGD procedures)Number of Procedures with Elevated End Tidal CO2 level (≥ 60 mmHg)
Procedures With Post Endoscopy Reported SymptomsFrequency of reported symptoms up to 4 hours post endoscopy was compared between groupsProcedures with post endoscopy reported symptoms, up to 4 hours, of belching, bloating and flatulence

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

180 procedures were enrolled; 91 procedures in the CO2 group and 89 procedures in the air group. There were 178 participants enrolled. 2 participants were enrolled twice

Pre-assignment details

There were no significant events in this study. There were 178 patients enrolled for 180 procedures. 2 participants were enrolled twice

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Air for Insufflation
In this arm of patients, air which is currently used as standard of care will be used for insufflation Air: Air is the standard of practice and will be used in the control arm
88
Carbon Dioxide Gas for Insufflation
in this arm of patients, carbon dioxide (CO2) will be used for insufflation during endoscopy Carbon dioxide gas for insufflation: Carbon dioxide gas use for insufflation during endoscopy instead of air
90
Total178

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicAir for InsufflationTotalCarbon Dioxide Gas for Insufflation
Age, Customized
< 4 years
2 participants8 participants6 participants
Age, Customized
> 4 years
86 participants170 participants84 participants
ASA class status
High ASA class (> II high sedation risk)
33 participants58 participants25 participants
ASA class status
Low ASA class (I&II, low sedation risk)
55 participants120 participants65 participants
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
88 participants178 participants90 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
53 Participants99 Participants46 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
35 Participants79 Participants44 Participants
Type of procedure
Any Colonoscopy
36 Participants69 Participants33 Participants
Type of procedure
EGD/Colonoscopy
30 Participants60 Participants30 Participants
Type of procedure
EGD only
44 Participants88 Participants44 Participants
Type of procedure
Other
9 Participants23 Participants14 Participants
Weight47.2 kilograms46.9 kilograms46.6 kilograms

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 880 / 90
other
Total, other adverse events
1 / 884 / 90
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 880 / 90

Outcome results

Primary

Change in Abdominal Distension

Change in abdominal girth from baseline to end of procedure (Time Difference 1) or Change in abdominal girth from baseline to time of discharge ((Time Difference 2)

Time frame: Mean change in abdominal girth between time points were compared between groups

Population: 178 participants were enrolled for 180 procedures

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Air for InsufflationChange in Abdominal DistensionTime Difference 1: Difference from baseline to end of procedure (median 16 minutes), cm0.9 cmStandard Deviation 2.3
Air for InsufflationChange in Abdominal DistensionTime Difference 2: Difference from baseline to discharge (approximately 120 minutes), cm1.1 cmStandard Deviation 2.2
Carbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationChange in Abdominal DistensionTime Difference 1: Difference from baseline to end of procedure (median 16 minutes), cm0.5 cmStandard Deviation 2
Carbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationChange in Abdominal DistensionTime Difference 2: Difference from baseline to discharge (approximately 120 minutes), cm0.9 cmStandard Deviation 2.5
Secondary

Elevations of End Tidal Carbon Dioxide

Number of Procedures with Elevated End Tidal CO2 level (≥ 60 mmHg)

Time frame: Time frame of monitoring from start to end of procedure (average of 12 minutes for EGD procedures)

Population: 178 participants were included in 180 procedures

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Air for InsufflationElevations of End Tidal Carbon Dioxide5 Procedures
Carbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationElevations of End Tidal Carbon Dioxide34 Procedures
Secondary

Procedures With Post Endoscopy Reported Symptoms

Procedures with post endoscopy reported symptoms, up to 4 hours, of belching, bloating and flatulence

Time frame: Frequency of reported symptoms up to 4 hours post endoscopy was compared between groups

Population: 178 participants were enrolled for 180 procedures

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Air for InsufflationProcedures With Post Endoscopy Reported SymptomsBelching18 procedures
Air for InsufflationProcedures With Post Endoscopy Reported SymptomsBloating13 procedures
Air for InsufflationProcedures With Post Endoscopy Reported SymptomsFlatulence26 procedures
Carbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationProcedures With Post Endoscopy Reported SymptomsBloating5 procedures
Carbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationProcedures With Post Endoscopy Reported SymptomsBelching31 procedures
Carbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationProcedures With Post Endoscopy Reported SymptomsFlatulence9 procedures

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026