A randomized controlled study comparing room air with carbon dioxide for abdominal pain, distention, and recovery time in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. Many barriers to the procedure exist including the possibility of abdominal discomfort that may occur with insufflation. Carbon dioxide (CO2), which is rapidly absorbed in the blood stream, is an alternate method used to distend the lumen during colonoscopy. The goal of this study was to compare patient discomfort, abdominal girth, and recovery time in 2 groups of patients randomized to CO2 versus room air insufflation during colonoscopy. Using a Wong-Baker score, we found statistical difference in postprocedural discomfort levels (CO2 Group: 1.15 ± 2.0 vs. room air: 0.41 ± 0.31, p = .015) and a significantly greater increase in abdominal girth over CO2 immediately postprocedure (room air: 1.06 ± 1.29 inches vs. CO2: 0.56 ± 0.73 inches, p = .054) girth immediately postprocedure; however, recovery time was similar between the 2 study arms (CO2: 9.1 ± 16.2 minutes vs. room air: 10.2 ± 18.6 minutes, p = .713). Further studies are needed to determine whether CO2 is cost-effective and improves patient satisfaction with colonoscopy.

Esophageal motor disorders in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: An association between eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and esophageal motility disorders has been described in small studies. AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of esophageal motor disorders in a large cohort of adults with EoE and examine whether an association exists between esophageal dysmotility and dysphagia. METHODS: A retrospective review of esophageal manometry studies in adult EoE patients was performed. Tracings were reviewed for abnormalities including nutcracker esophagus and ineffective swallows, defined as low amplitude peristalsis (<30 mmHg) or non-propagating contractions. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) was categorized as mild (30-40% ineffective swallows), moderate (50-60% ineffective swallows), and severe (≥70% ineffective swallows). Dysphagia was graded on a 0-3 scale for frequency and severity. RESULTS: Seventy-five tracings from EoE patients were reviewed (85% male, mean age 41 ± 12 years). IEM was identified in 25 patients and categorized as mild (n = 13), moderate (n = 6), and severe (n = 6). Nutcracker esophagus was found in three patients. There was no significant difference in eosinophil count among the motility groups: normal 46.5 ± 3.1, mild IEM 56.9 ± 36.9, moderate IEM 45.5 ± 23.7, severe IEM 34.3 ± 12.6 (P = 0.157). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of EoE patients, the majority had normal esophageal motility studies, although a subset of these patients had some esophageal dysmotility. It is unlikely that esophageal dysmotility is a major contributing factor to dysphagia, although it is reasonable to consider esophageal manometry testing in EoE patients to identify potential abnormalities of the smooth muscle esophagus.

Prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis in an adult population undergoing upper endoscopy: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the esophagus. The purpose of this prospective study was to determine the prevalence and clinical predictors of EoE in patients undergoing elective upper endoscopy. METHODS: We enrolled 400 consecutive adults (median age, 50 years; range, 19-92 years) who underwent routine upper endoscopy from March to September 2007 at a tertiary care military hospital. All patients completed a symptom questionnaire. All endoscopic findings were noted. Eight biopsies were obtained from proximal and distal esophagus and were reviewed by a blinded gastrointestinal pathologist. Patients had EoE if > or =20 eosinophils/high-power field were present. RESULTS: The prevalence of EoE in this cohort was 6.5% (25/385; 95% confidence interval, 4.3%-9.4%). Compared with EoE negative patients, EoE positive patients were more likely to be male (80.0% vs 48.1%, P = .003), younger than 50 years (72.0% vs 48.9%, P = .037), and have asthma (32.0% vs 10.8%, P = .006), a food impaction (32.0% vs 8.9%, P = .002), dysphagia (64.0% vs 38.1%, P = .018), and classic endoscopic findings (rings, furrows, plaques, or strictures) of EoE (all P < .01). Logistic regression identified asthma (odds ratio [OR], 4.48), male gender (OR, 4.23), and esophageal rings (OR, 13.1) as independent predictors of EoE. The presence of classic endoscopic findings of EoE had a sensitivity of 72% (54%-88%), specificity of 89% (87%-90%), and negative predictive value of 98% (95.6%-99.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of EoE in an outpatient population undergoing upper endoscopy was 6.5%. The characteristic findings of EoE patients included male gender, history of asthma, and the presence of classic findings of EoE on endoscopy, which is the strongest predictor of this disease process.

Ineffectiveness of routine abdominal radiography in patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage admitted to an intensive care unit.

GOALS: To determine the utility of plain abdominal radiography in the initial evaluation of acute gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage in a medical intensive care unit. BACKGROUND: Plain abdominal radiographs are frequently used in the routine evaluation of patients with GI bleeding. The utility of these studies in the intensive care unit setting is unclear. STUDY: The study was a retrospective chart review of 71 adult subjects admitted to a medical intensive care unit with the diagnosis of GI bleeding. Subjects were excluded if they presented with peritoneal signs, received an abdominal CT scan in the 24 hours prior to admission, or were chronically treated with immunosuppressive medication. Subjects were divided into two cohorts based on whether or not they underwent plain abdominal radiography during the first hospital day. The primary study endpoints were hospital mortality, intensive care unit length of stay, and whether or not radiographic findings altered clinical management. RESULTS: Of the 71 patients admitted with a diagnosis of GI bleeding (mean age 65.8 +/- 14.5 years, 73.2% male), 56 (79%) had a plain abdominal radiograph performed. Subjects who had a plain film did not differ significantly from those who did not in age, gender, degree of anemia, degree of coagulopathy, or in severity of illness as measured by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score. There was no statistically significant difference in hospital mortality or intensive care unit length of stay between patients who received plain films and those who did not. In no subject (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0%-5.4%) did abdominal radiography reveal an abnormality that altered clinical management. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our observations, plain films of the abdomen do not appear to alter clinical outcomes or management decisions for patients with GI bleeding and normal abdominal examinations who are admitted to the intensive care unit.