ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03287687Updated Jan 19, 2022Results posted

Safety and Efficacy of CO2 for Endoscopy

A Phase 4 interventional study of Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas insufflation and Air insufflation in Endoscopy and Insufflation, sponsored by Warren Bishop. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 6 Months to 21 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-01-19.

Sponsored by Warren Bishop · Phase 4, Interventional, and Other

Phase
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
180
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
6 Months to 21 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Hypothesis:

Carbon dioxide gas use for endoscopic insufflation is safe and results in less abdominal distension and discomfort; it is equally effective as air in pediatric patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Aim 1:

Determine the occurrence and severity of abdominal discomfort and distension associated with endoscopic procedures at baseline, upon awakening from anesthesia, at discharge and at 4 hours after discharge in carbon dioxide group when compared to the air group.

Aim 2:

Determine if the expertise level of the endoscopist contributes to abdominal discomfort and distension following endoscopy, and whether this differs in the carbon dioxide group versus air group.

Aim 3:

Determine if carbon dioxide is as effective as air for insufflation.

Read the detailed description

STUDY DESIGN: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Controlled Trial We intend to enroll 250 patients aged between 6 months and 21 years in a randomized, double-blind study comparing the use of air (our current routine) vs. carbon dioxide (CO2) for insufflation (inflation) of the gut during endoscopy. The primary endpoint will be abdominal girth and abdominal pain/discomfort after undergoing the endoscopy. Secondary endpoints will be indirect measures of CO2 absorption (respiratory rate and end-tidal CO2)throughout the procedure, determination whether the endoscopist's training level influences the primary endpoint,and determination if CO2 and air are equally effective for adequate intestinal visualization . Similar studies in adults have demonstrated safety and efficacy of CO2 in minimizing bloating and abdominal pain following endoscopy and show no difference in efficacy of insufflation. However, studies done to date in children have not been comprehensive in data gathering and analysis. We now have the capability to routinely use CO2 for insufflation in our new Stead Family Children's Hospital procedure unit, and wish to take this opportunity to fully document both efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation in children undergoing our most common endoscopic procedures, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD, upper endoscopy,) colonoscopy, or combined upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. All patients in the study will be sedated by the anesthesia team using propofol as the primary agent. We will exclude patients who are judged to be at risk of respiratory compromise.

Informed consent will be obtained as always for the procedure itself; additional consent and/ assent (when appropriate) will be obtained for study participation. For patients or parents who opt out of the study; air will be used, as per our current routine, for insufflation. Those willing to participate in the study will be randomly assigned to either carbon dioxide or air for insufflation during their endoscopic procedure. Both the endoscopist and patient will be blinded to arm of study.

DATA COLLECTION: At baseline, routine vital signs (HR, BP, RR, oxygen saturation), end tidal CO2, and pain assessment (see below) will be documented. Abdominal girth, measured at the umbilicus, will be documented at baseline as well. The expertise level of the primary endoscopist will be noted; fellow (1st, 2nd, or 3rd year) or faculty will be recorded. A faculty gastroenterologist will be present for the entire procedure.

During the endoscopic procedure, again as per our usual routine, end-tidal CO2 will be continuously monitored and recorded in Epic by the anesthesia team. Other parameters that will be monitored and recorded continuously will include, HR, BP respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation. Based on published studies, we do not anticipate any evidence of detectable CO2 absorption during the procedure, but will be prepared to unblind the study and switch to air insufflation if any concern arises during the procedure. The duration and type of procedure will be noted for all patients.

At the end of the procedure, Heart rate (HR) , Blood pressure (BP), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation, end tidal CO2, abdominal girth, and pain assessment will be documented again. "Breath to breath" analysis of the end tidal CO2 monitor tracing will be performed later, using recorded data, study by Dr. Timothy Starner (Pediatric pulmonologist). This will enable us to determine if there had been any evidence of an increased respiratory rate associated with increased CO2 absorption.

We will use the verbal scale : face, legs, activity, cry, consolability (FLACC) scale to assess pain upon arrival to recovery area. After awakening, abdominal discomfort will be assessed for children who are able to do so, and the assessment will be repeated at discharge from the facility. FLACC will be used for all children with appropriate developmental status, age 5 years and older for normal children. After discharge, the parents will complete an additional brief pain assessment at home at 4 hours after discharge. For those who had an abdominal girth increase of at least 10% from baseline, abdominal girth will be re-measured at home, at 4 hours after discharge.

We will use the non-verbal FLACC scale for children unable to verbally report pain using the visual scale.

Parents will report pain and abdominal girth data done at home by returning a pre-stamped postcard. Those who do not communicate this information will be called by a member of the research team for this information after five working days.

We hypothesize, based on adult and few pediatric studies, that post-procedure abdominal discomfort will be significantly decreased in the CO2 group, and that CO2 will be shown to be safe and effective for endoscopic insufflation.

Efficacy of insufflation will be assessed by the endoscopist immediately after the procedure using a 5-point Likert scale.

02

Conditions studied

  • Endoscopy
  • Insufflation
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Warren Bishop is the lead sponsor of 3 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
6 Months to 21 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Pediatric gastroenterology patients aged 6 months through 21 years undergoing endoscopic procedures in the Stead Family Children's Hospital (SFCH) Lower Level 2 procedure room or the operating room in the SFCH who willingly consent/ascent to the study. These procedures will range from Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, Colonoscopy, and those having both Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Non English speaking families who require the services of a translator Children outside the stipulated age range of study. Children in foster care homes or wards of the court. Children and parents who do not willingly consent to the study Children with history of bronchopulmonary dysplasia or other chronic respiratory compromise.
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
180 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Air for insufflation

    In this arm of patients, air which is currently used as standard of care will be used for insufflation

    Drug: Air insufflation

  • Experimental
    Carbon dioxide gas for insufflation

    in this arm of patients, carbon dioxide (CO2) will be used for insufflation during endoscopy

    Drug: Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas insufflation

Interventions

  • CO2 gas use for insufflation during endoscopy instead of air insufflation

    Also known as: CO2

  • DrugAir insufflation

    Air insufflation is the standard of practice (used in the control arm)

    Also known as: Control

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in Abdominal Distension

    Change in abdominal girth from baseline to end of procedure (Time Difference 1) or Change in abdominal girth from baseline to time of discharge ((Time Difference 2)

    Time frame: Mean change in abdominal girth between time points were compared between groups

Secondary outcomes

  1. Elevations of End Tidal Carbon Dioxide

    Number of Procedures with Elevated End Tidal CO2 level (≥ 60 mmHg)

    Time frame: Time frame of monitoring from start to end of procedure (average of 12 minutes for EGD procedures)

  2. Procedures With Post Endoscopy Reported Symptoms

    Procedures with post endoscopy reported symptoms, up to 4 hours, of belching, bloating and flatulence

    Time frame: Frequency of reported symptoms up to 4 hours post endoscopy was compared between groups

07

Results

Posted Jan 19, 2022

Participant flow

180 procedures were enrolled; 91 procedures in the CO2 group and 89 procedures in the air group. There were 178 participants enrolled. 2 participants were enrolled twice

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneAir for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for Insufflation
Started8890
Procedures8890
Completed8890
Not completed00

Outcome measures

PrimaryChange in Abdominal Distension

Change in abdominal girth from baseline to end of procedure (Time Difference 1) or Change in abdominal girth from baseline to time of discharge ((Time Difference 2)

Time frame:
Mean change in abdominal girth between time points were compared between groups
Reported as:
Mean · cm
Change in Abdominal Distension
cmAir for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for Insufflation
Time Difference 1: Difference from baseline to end of procedure (median 16 minutes), cm0.9 ± 2.30.5 ± 2.0
Time Difference 2: Difference from baseline to discharge (approximately 120 minutes), cm1.1 ± 2.20.9 ± 2.5
SecondaryElevations of End Tidal Carbon Dioxide

Number of Procedures with Elevated End Tidal CO2 level (≥ 60 mmHg)

Time frame:
Time frame of monitoring from start to end of procedure (average of 12 minutes for EGD procedures)
Reported as:
Number · Procedures
Elevations of End Tidal Carbon Dioxide
ProceduresAir for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for Insufflation
Elevations of End Tidal Carbon Dioxide534
SecondaryProcedures With Post Endoscopy Reported Symptoms

Procedures with post endoscopy reported symptoms, up to 4 hours, of belching, bloating and flatulence

Time frame:
Frequency of reported symptoms up to 4 hours post endoscopy was compared between groups
Reported as:
Number · procedures
Procedures With Post Endoscopy Reported Symptoms
proceduresAir for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for Insufflation
Belching1831
Bloating135
Flatulence269

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse event data was collected from start of procedure time up to 4 hours post procedure. Non-serious events are listed at a 1% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Air for Insufflation0/88 (0%)0/88 (0%)1/88 (1.1%)
Carbon Dioxide Gas for Insufflation0/90 (0%)0/90 (0%)4/90 (4.4%)
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventAir for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for Insufflation
Procedural related complication - BleedingGastrointestinal disorders0/882/90
Anesthesia related complication - AspirationRespiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders0/882/90
Anesthesia related complication - HypoxiaRespiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders1/880/90

Baseline characteristics

178 participants enrolled in 180 procedures were blindly randomized to arms air or CO2 insufflation

Age, Customized
Age, Customized(participants)Air for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationTotal
< 4 years268
> 4 years8684170
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Air for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationTotal
Female534699
Male354479
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Air for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationTotal
Count of participants——0
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Air for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationTotal
United States8890178
Weight
Weight(kilograms)Air for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationTotal
Median47.2 (7.9 to 97.4)46.6 (9.4 to 128.5)46.9 (7.9 to 128.5)
ASA class status
ASA class status(participants)Air for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationTotal
Low ASA class (I&II, low sedation risk)5565120
High ASA class (> II high sedation risk)332558
Type of procedure
Type of procedure(Participants)Air for InsufflationCarbon Dioxide Gas for InsufflationTotal
EGD only444488
EGD/Colonoscopy303060
Any Colonoscopy363369
Other91423
08

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Iowa
    Iowa City, Iowa 52242, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Homan M, Mahkovic D, Orel R, Mamula P. Randomized, double-blind trial of CO2 versus air insufflation in children undergoing colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 May;83(5):993-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.073. Epub 2015 Sep 10. PubMed 26363332 ↗
  • Dike CR, Rahhal R, Bishop WP. Is Carbon Dioxide Insufflation During Endoscopy in Children as Safe and as Effective as We Think? J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2020 Aug;71(2):211-215. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000002724. PubMed 32304555 ↗

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Jan 1, 2020
  • Statistical analysis plan · Dec 1, 2017

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 19, 2022, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03287687
Lead sponsor
Warren Bishop
Responsible party
Warren Bishop (Principal Investigator, University of Iowa) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Sep 19, 2017
Start date
Nov 27, 2017
Primary completion
Apr 9, 2019
Completion
Apr 9, 2019
Results posted
Jan 19, 2022
Last update
Jan 19, 2022

Study contacts

Warren P Bishop, MD
principal investigator · University of Iowa

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Studies of the drug tested here: Carbon Dioxide

Start the discussion