Patient-controlled room air insufflation versus automated carbon dioxide delivery for CT colonography - PubMed (original) (raw)
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2006 Jun;186(6):1491-6.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0416.
Affiliations
- PMID: 16714635
- DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0416
Randomized Controlled Trial
Patient-controlled room air insufflation versus automated carbon dioxide delivery for CT colonography
Theodore J Shinners et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jun.
Abstract
Objective: Our objective was to prospectively compare colonic distention and patient comfort at screening CT colonography (CTC) with patient-controlled room air (RA) insufflation versus automated carbon dioxide (CO2) delivery.
Subjects and methods: Two hundred eight adults undergoing CTC were randomized to RA or CO2 (104 per method). Colonic distention was prospectively assessed by segment using a 4-point scale (1 = optimal, 2 = adequate, 3 = inadequate, 4 = collapsed). Adequacy of combined supine/prone segmental evaluation was also recorded. Patients provided discomfort ratings on a 0-10 scale (0-1 = none/insignificant, 2-3 = minimal, 4-6 = intermediate, 7-10 = significant) before, during, and after the procedure.
Results: No significant differences in segmental distention were observed in the prone position between techniques. In the supine position, CO2 resulted in significantly greater distention in the sigmoid, descending, and transverse segments (p < 0.01). After combined supine/prone assessment, two/104 (1.9%) and three/104 (2.9%) patients were judged to have an inadequately evaluated segment on RA and CO2, respectively (four sigmoid, one transverse). Mean discomfort scores for RA and CO2 were 3.97 and 5.08 during the examination (p < 0.01); 0.91 and 0.42 immediately after (p < 0.01); 0.51 and 0.25 15 min later (p < 0.05); and 0.15 and 0.04 2 hours later (p < 0.01), respectively. During active distention, 19 (18.3%) and 33 (31.7%) patients reported significant transient discomfort with RA and CO2, respectively (p < 0.05). Beyond 15 min, only two (1.9%) patients with RA and no patients with CO2 had a discomfort level higher than 3.
Conclusion: Although patient-controlled RA insufflation and automated CO2 delivery each resulted in negligible postprocedure discomfort and reliable colonic distention, CO2 was better for both categories.
Similar articles
- Automated insufflation of carbon dioxide for MDCT colonography: distension and patient experience compared with manual insufflation.
Burling D, Taylor SA, Halligan S, Gartner L, Paliwalla M, Peiris C, Singh L, Bassett P, Bartram C. Burling D, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jan;186(1):96-103. doi: 10.2214/AJR.04.1506. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006. PMID: 16357385 - Objective volumetric comparison of room air versus carbon dioxide for colonic distention at screening CT colonography.
Patrick JL, Bakke JR, Bannas P, Kim DH, Lubner MG, Pickhardt PJ. Patrick JL, et al. Abdom Imaging. 2015 Feb;40(2):231-6. doi: 10.1007/s00261-014-0206-x. Abdom Imaging. 2015. PMID: 25081924 Free PMC article. - Volumetric analysis of colonic distention according to patient position at CT colonography: diagnostic value of the right lateral decubitus series.
Pickhardt PJ, Bakke J, Kuo J, Robbins JB, Lubner MG, del Rio AM, Kim DH. Pickhardt PJ, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Dec;203(6):W623-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.12369. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014. PMID: 25415727 Free PMC article. - Fundamental elements for successful performance of CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy).
Park SH, Yee J, Kim SH, Kim YH. Park SH, et al. Korean J Radiol. 2007 Jul-Aug;8(4):264-75. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2007.8.4.264. Korean J Radiol. 2007. PMID: 17673837 Free PMC article. Review. - Carbon Dioxide Versus Air Insufflation for Elective Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Memon MA, Memon B, Yunus RM, Khan S. Memon MA, et al. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016 Apr;26(2):102-16. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000243. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016. PMID: 26841319 Review.
Cited by
- Computed tomography colonography and radiation risk: How low can we go?
Popic J, Tipuric S, Balen I, Mrzljak A. Popic J, et al. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Mar 16;13(3):72-81. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v13.i3.72. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2021. PMID: 33763187 Free PMC article. Review. - Diagnostic Performance of Multitarget Stool DNA and CT Colonography for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Pickhardt PJ, Graffy PM, Weigman B, Deiss-Yehiely N, Hassan C, Weiss JM. Pickhardt PJ, et al. Radiology. 2020 Oct;297(1):120-129. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020201018. Epub 2020 Aug 11. Radiology. 2020. PMID: 32779997 Free PMC article. - CT colonography screening in extracolonic cancer survivors: impact on rates of colorectal and extracolonic findings by cancer type.
Larson ME, Pickhardt PJ. Larson ME, et al. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Jan;44(1):31-40. doi: 10.1007/s00261-018-1708-8. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019. PMID: 30066170 Free PMC article. - Volumetric Textural Analysis of Colorectal Masses at CT Colonography: Differentiating Benign versus Malignant Pathology and Comparison with Human Reader Performance.
Pooler BD, Lubner MG, Theis JR, Halberg RB, Liang Z, Pickhardt PJ. Pooler BD, et al. Acad Radiol. 2019 Jan;26(1):30-37. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.03.002. Epub 2018 Mar 19. Acad Radiol. 2019. PMID: 29566994 Free PMC article. - CT Colonographic Screening of Patients With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Adults at Average Risk and Implications for Guidelines.
Pickhardt PJ, Mbah I, Pooler BD, Chen OT, Hinshaw JL, Weiss JM, Kim DH. Pickhardt PJ, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Apr;208(4):794-800. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16724. Epub 2017 Jan 26. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017. PMID: 28125785 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources