Does end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring in gastrointestinal endoscopy have a clinical advantage?

Abstract

Aims: In current guidelines recommended CO2 monitoring for patient safety and comfort in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. We aimed to investigate whether carbon dioxide monitoring, which was developed for the early detection of adverse respiratory events shows the expected benefit in its clinical use. Methods: Asa I-II patients, average age 48±15, were divided into two groups, standard monitoring was performed on Group S (n=30), and EtCO2, Integrated Pulmonary Index measurements were added to the Group K (n=30). Patients received Fentanyl 1µgr/kg, propofol 1 mg/kg and propofol 10-30 mg in a bolus by providing BIS to be 60-85. Adverse respiratory events were recorded. The time to Fast-tracking score being 14 was recorded and patients with two consecutive Fast-tracking scores of 14 were discharged. Patient satisfaction was questioned the next day. Results: There is no difference between groups in heart rate and mean arterial pressure, and decreased during the procedure compared to baseline in both groups. While EtCO2 was similar at all times, IPI was lower than baseline. While the processing time was 21±6 in Group S, it was 38±11 in Group K. No adverse respiratory events occurred. Recovery heart rates, peripheral oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressure and scores were similar. There was no difference in patient satisfaction. Conclusions: There wasn’t a clinical advantage with measuring EtCO2 added to the standard monitoring in gastrointestinal tract endoscopy. We believe that more studies are needed on optimum monitoring during moderate sedation in patients with less clinical risk.