ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: To reduce the costs of colonoscopy the feasibility of unsedated procedures has been explored. The aims of our study were to assess patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation and identify factors related to painful colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Norwegian Gastronet quality assurance documentation tools consist of endoscopy reports (completed on site) and a patient satisfaction questionnaire (completed by the patient on the day after colonoscopy). Data were collected from January 1 2004 to December 31 2006. Colonoscopies reported to be moderately or severely painful were defined as "painful colonoscopy." RESULTS: Nine endoscopy centers representing 86 endoscopists reported 14 915 examinations and 12 354 patient reports were returned (83 % response rate). Patient satisfaction with service and information given was greater than 95 % for all centers. Mean rate of painful colonoscopy was 34 % and mean sedation rate 34 %. Odds ratio (OR) for painful colonoscopy was 2.2 ( P < 0.001) when sedation was given. The ORs for painful colonoscopy were similar for all but one center (no. 4) with OR 1.6 ( P = 0.04), while the OR for giving sedation was higher for all but one center (no. 1) compared with the reference center (ORs 2.2 to 7.5, all P-values < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A surprisingly high rate of painful colonoscopy was found. High sedation rates were not associated with low rates of painful colonoscopy. Recommending increased sedation rates as the only intervention to improve suboptimal performance might not lead to lower rates of painful colonoscopy.
Subject(s)
Analgesics/administration & dosage , Colonoscopy/methods , Conscious Sedation , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Pain Measurement , Patient Satisfaction , Abdominal Pain , Adult , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures , Clinical Competence , Colonoscopy/adverse effects , Colonoscopy/economics , Colonoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Conscious Sedation/economics , Female , Humans , Male , Multivariate Analysis , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The effect on abdominal pain of using carbon dioxide (CO2) for insufflation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has not been investigated. The present study aimed to compare CO2 insufflation with standard air insufflation with respect to the pain experienced during and after ERCP. In addition, we investigated the effect of CO2 insufflation on the partial pressure of CO2 (Pco2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 118 consecutive patients who were undergoing ERCP were randomized to CO2 insufflation or to air insufflation during the procedure. Both the endoscopists and the patients were blinded with regard to the gas used. Patients rated the intensity of pain experienced on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) during ERCP and at 1 hour, 3 hours, 6 hours, and 24 hours after the procedure. Transdermal Pco2 was measured continuously in all patients during the procedure. RESULTS: Altogether, 116 patients were eligible for analysis, 58 in each treatment group, and 91 patients responded to the questionnaire (78 %). The mean severity of postprocedure pain was significantly reduced in the CO2 group compared with the air group at 1 hour (5 mm vs. 19 mm on the VAS, P < 0.001), at 3 hours (7 mm vs. 21 mm, P < 0.001), at 6 hours (10 mm vs. 22 mm, P = 0.006), and at 24 hours (4 mm vs. 20 mm, P < 0.001) after the procedure. Radiographs taken 5 minutes after the procedure showed that abdominal distension was more pronounced in patients in the air insufflation group. There were no differences in Pco2values between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Carbon dioxide insufflation during ERCP significantly reduces postprocedural abdominal pain. No side effects were observed. Carbon dioxide should be the standard gas used for insufflation in ERCP.
