Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2012 Oct 21;18(39):5622-31.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i39.5622.

Carbon dioxide insufflation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Yao Cheng  1 , Xian-Ze Xiong, Si-Jia Wu, Jiong Lu, Yi-Xin Lin, Nan-Sheng Cheng, Tai-Xiang Wu
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Carbon dioxide insufflation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Yao Cheng et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Aim: To assess the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Methods: The Cochrane Library, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Science Citation Index Expanded, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and references in relevant publications were searched up to December 2011 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CO(2) insufflation with air insufflation during ERCP. The trials were included in the review irrespective of sample size, publication status, or language. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent authors. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1.6. A random-effects model was used to analyze various outcomes. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if necessary.

Results: Seven double-blind RCTs involving a total of 818 patients were identified that compared CO(2) insufflation (n = 404) with air insufflation (n = 401) during ERCP. There were a total of 13 post-randomization dropouts in four RCTs. Six RCTs had a high risk of bias and one had a low risk of bias. None of the RCTs reported any severe gas-related adverse events in either group. A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (n = 459) indicated that patients in the CO(2) insufflation group had less post-ERCP abdominal pain and distension for at least 1 h compared with patients in the air insufflation group. There were no significant differences in mild cardiopulmonary complications [risk ratio (RR) = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.07-2.66, P = 0.36], cardiopulmonary (e.g., blood CO(2) level) changes [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.97, 95% CI: -2.58-0.63, P = 0.23], cost analysis (mean difference = 3.14, 95% CI: -14.57-20.85, P = 0.73), and total procedure time (SMD = -0.05, 95% CI: -0.26-0.17, P = 0.67) between the two groups.

Conclusion: CO(2) insufflation during ERCP appears to be safe and reduces post-ERCP abdominal pain and discomfort.

Keywords: Abdominal pain; Carbon dioxide insufflation; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Meta-analysis; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram showing study selection process. RCT: Randomized controlled trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plots of meta-analysis. A: Carbon dioxide vs air in abdominal pain scores; B: Carbon dioxide vs air in pain-free patients; C: Carbon dioxide vs air in abdominal distension; D: Carbon dioxide vs air in mild cardiopulmonary complications; E: Carbon dioxide vs air in change in blood carbon dioxide level; F: Carbon dioxide vs air in total costs; G: Carbon dioxide vs air in total procedure time. IV: Inverse-variance; M-H: Mantel Haenszel; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; VAS: Visual analogue scale; MD: Mean difference; SMD: Standardized mean difference.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Spangler CC, Gardner TB, Mukherjee S, Windle ML, Roberts KE. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Available from: http: //emedicine.medscape.com/article/1829797-overview#showall.
    1. McCune WS. ERCP--the first twenty years. Gastrointest Endosc. 1988;34:277–278. - PubMed
    1. Baron TH. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy. 2010;42:938–943. - PubMed
    1. Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P, Hamlyn A, Logan RF, Martin D, Riley SA, Veitch P, Wilkinson M, Williamson PJ, et al. Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice. Gut. 2007;56:821–829. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Available from: http: //www.endonurse.com/articles/2008/06/developments-in-ercp.aspx.

MeSH terms