Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the insufflation of CO 2 and ambient air in enteroscopy. SEARCH SOURCES: The investigators researched the electronic databases MedLine, Cochrane Library, Central, LILACS, BVS, Scopus and Cinahl. The grey search was conducted in the base of theses of the University of São Paulo, books of digestive endoscopy and references of selected articles and in previous systematic revisions. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The evaluation of eligibility was performed independently, in a non-blind manner, by two reviewers, firstly by title and abstract, followed by complete text. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by consensus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHOD: Through the spreadsheet of data extraction, where one author extracted the data and a second author checked the extraction. Disagreements were resolved by debate between the two reviewers. The quality analysis of the studies was performed using the Jadad score. The software RevMan 5 version 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four randomized clinical trials were identified, totaling 473 patients submitted to enteroscopy and comparing insufflation of CO 2 and ambient air. There was no statistical difference in the intubation depth between the two groups. When CO 2 insufflation was reduced, there was a significant difference in pain levels 1 hour after the procedure (95 % IC, -2.49 [-4.72, -0.26], P : 0.03, I 2 : 20%) and 3 hours after the procedure (95% IC, -3.05 [-5.92, -0.18], P : 0.04, I 2 : 0 %). There was a usage of lower propofol dosage in the CO 2 insufflation group, with significant difference (95 % IC, -67.68 [-115.53, -19.84], P : 0.006, I 2 : 0 %). There was no significant difference between the groups in relation to the use of pethidine and to the oxygen saturation. LIMITATIONS: Restricted number of randomized clinical trials and nonuniformity of data were limitations to the analysis of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: The use of CO 2 as insufflation gas in enteroscopy reduces the pain levels 1 hour and 3 hours after the procedure, in addition to the reduction of the sedation (propofol) dosage used.

Complex biliary stones management: cholangioscopy versus papillary large balloon dilation - a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic removal of biliary stones has high success rates, ranging between 85 % to 95 %. Nevertheless, some stones may be challenging and different endoscopic methods have evolved. Papillary large balloon dilation after sphincterotomy is a widely used technique with success rates ranging from 68 to 90 % for stones larger than 15 mm. Cholangioscopy allows performing lithotripsy under direct biliary visualization, either by laser or electrohydraulic waves, which have similar success rate (80 % - 90 %). However, there is no study comparing these 2 techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 2014 to June 2016, 100 patients were enrolled and randomized in 2 groups, using a non-inferiority hypothesis: cholangioscopy + electrohydraulic lithotripsy (group 1) and endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (group 2). The main outcome was complete stone removal. Adverse events were documented. Mechanical lithotripsy was not performed. Failure cases had a second session with crossover of the methods. RESULTS: The mean age was 56 years. 74 (75.5 %) patients were female. The initial overall complete stone removal rate was 74.5 % (77.1 % in group 1 and 72 % in group 2, P  > 0.05). After second session the overall success rate achieved 90.1 %. Procedure time was significantly lower in group 2, - 25.2 min (CI95 % - 12.48 to - 37.91). There were no significant differences regarding technical success rate, radiologic exposure and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy and papillary large balloon dilation are effective and safe approaches for removing complex biliary stones.

Estudio comparativo entre el uso de manitol y el picosulfato sódico como preparación para colonoscopía / Comparison of colon-cleansing methods in preparation for colonoscopy- comparative of solutions of mannitol and sodium picosulfate

Objetivos: El objetivo del presente estudio es comparar la preparación adecuada del colon con manitol y picosulfato sódico. Evaluar la aceptación de los pacientes, los efectos secundarios y la capacidad de limpieza. Materiales y métodos: Este es un estudio no aleatorio, prospectivo, ciego, en que el evaluador no tenía información sobre la preparación aplicada. La muestra obtenida se dividió en dos grupos de acuerdo con la preparación adecuada del colon, con 153 pacientes preparados con manitol al 10% y 84 pacientes con picosulfato sódico. La evaluación de la preparación se realizó usando la Escala de Boston (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale - BBP) a través de un sistema de puntuación para cada región del colon puntuada con 3 puntos: derecha, izquierda y colon transverso. Resultados: De los 237 pacientes que fueron evaluados, 146 (61,60%) eran mujeres y 91 (38,4%) eran hombres. En el grupo que utilizó manitol, 98 (64,05%) eran mujeres y 55 (35,95%) eran varones. Entre los pacientes que utilizaron picosulfato sódico, 48 (57,14%)eran mujeres y 36 (42,86%) eran hombres, sin diferencias estadísticas de ambos grupos (p>0,32). Teniendo en cuenta que con la adecuada preparación del colon y con puntuación de 6 puntos en la Escala de Boston, la preparación intestinal fue satisfactoria en ambos grupos. El 93% de los pacientes que utilizaron manitol y el 81% de los pacientes que utilizaron picosulfato sódico tenían preparación adecuada (puntuación de 6). La puntuación media en la preparación con manitol fue de 9 y en la preparación con picosulfato sódico fue de 7. No hubo diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos. Conclusión: Ambas preparaciones, demostraron ser seguras y eficaces para la limpieza del intestino, de acuerdo con la Escala de Boston, así como, la aceptabilidad de los pacientes y libre de complicaciones

Objectives: The purpose of the present study is to compare intestinal preparation with mannitol and sodium picosulphate, assessing patient’s acceptance, side effects and cleaning capacity. Material and methods: This is a prospective, nom randomized, blind study, in which the evaluator had no information about the preparation applied. The sample obtained was divided into two groups according to the bowel preparation applied, with 153 patients prepared with 10% mannitol and 84 patients with sodium picosulfate. The evaluation of colon preparation was done using the Boston Scale (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale - BBP) through a three-point scoring system for each of the three regions of the colon: right, left and transverse colon. Results: Of the 237 patients that were evaluated, 146 (61.60%) were female and 91 (38.4%) were male. Regarding the group that used mannitol, 98 were female (64.05%) and 55 were male (35.95%). Among the patients who used sodium picosulfate, 48 were female (57.14%) and 36 were male (42.86%), with no statistical differences between both groups (p> 0.32). Considering that an adequate preparation scores ≥ 6 in the Boston Scale, the bowel cleansing preparation was satisfactory in both groups. 93% of the patients who used mannitol and 81% of the patients who used sodium picosulfate had adequate preparation (score of ≥ 6). Moreover, we consider that the average score in the preparation with Mannitol was 9, while the sodium picosulfate score was 7. There were no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion: There is consensus among authors who state that colonoscopy’s safety and success are highly related to the cleansing outcome, regardless of the method used. The same can be observed in the present study, on which both preparations were proved safe and effective for bowel cleansing, according to the Boston scale, as well as accepted by patients and free of complications

[Comparison of colon-cleansing methods in preparation for colonoscopy-comparative of solutions of mannitol and sodium picosulfate]. / Estudio comparativo entre el uso de manitol y el picosulfato sódico como preparación para colonoscopía.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study is to compare intestinal preparation with mannitol and sodium picosulphate, assessing patient's acceptance, side effects and cleaning capacity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective, nom randomized, blind study, in which the evaluator had no information about the preparation applied. The sample obtained was divided into two groups according to the bowel preparation applied, with 153 patients prepared with 10% mannitol and 84 patients with sodium picosulfate. The evaluation of colon preparation was done using the Boston Scale (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale - BBP) through a three-point scoring system for each of the three regions of the colon: right, left and transverse colon. RESULTS: Of the 237 patients that were evaluated, 146 (61.60%) were female and 91 (38.4%) were male. Regarding the group that used mannitol, 98 were female (64.05%) and 55 were male (35.95%). Among the patients who used sodium picosulfate, 48 were female (57.14%) and 36 were male (42.86%), with no statistical differences between both groups (p> 0.32). Considering that an adequate preparation scores ≥ 6 in the Boston Scale, the bowel cleansing preparation was satisfactory in both groups. 93% of the patients who used mannitol and 81% of the patients who used sodium picosulfate had adequate preparation (score of ≥ 6). Moreover, we consider that the average score in the preparation with Mannitol was 9, while the sodium picosulfate score was 7. There were no significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION: There is consensus among authors who state that colonoscopy's safety and success are highly related to the cleansing outcome, regardless of the method used. The same can be observed in the present study, on which both preparations were proved safe and effective for bowel cleansing, according to the Boston scale, as well as accepted by patients and free of complications.