AIM:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of CO2 insufflation compared with air insufflation in the endoscopic submucosal excavation(ESE) of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.METHODS:Sixty patients were randomized to undergo endoscopic submucosal excavation,with the CO2 group(n = 30) and the air group(n = 30) undergoingCO2 insufflation and air insufflation in the ESE,respectively.The end-tidal CO2 level(pETCO2) was observed at 4 time points:at the beginning of ESE,at total removal of the tumors,at completed wound management,and 10 min after ESE.Additionally,the patients’ experience of pain at 1,3,6 and 24 h after the examination was registered using a visual analog scale(VAS).RESULTS:Both the CO2 group and air group were similar in mean age,sex,body mass index(all P > 0.05).There were no significant differences in PetCO2 values before and after the procedure(P > 0.05).However,the pain scores after the ESE at different time points in the CO2 group decreased significantly compared with the air group(1 h:21.2 ± 3.4 vs 61.5 ± 1.7;3 h:8.5 ± 0.7 vs 42.9 ± 1.3;6 h:4.4 ± 1.6 vs 27.6 ± 1.2;24 h:2.3 ± 0.4 vs 21.4 ± 0.7,P < 0.05).Meanwhile,the percentage of VAS scores of 0 in the CO2 group after 1,3,6 and 24 h was significantly higher than that in the air group(60.7 ± 1.4 vs 18.9 ± 1.5,81.5 ± 2.3 vs 20.6 ± 1.2,89.2 ± 0.7 vs 36.8 ± 0.9,91.3 ± 0.8 vs 63.8 ± 1.3,respectively,P < 0.05).Moreover,the condition of the CO2 group was better than that of the air group with respect to anal exsufflation.CONCLUSION:Insufflation of CO2 in the ESE of gastrointestinal stromal tumors will not cause CO2 retention and it may significantly reduce the level of pain,thus it is safe and effective. AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of CO2 insufflation compared with air insufflation in the endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized to undergo endoscopic submucosal excavation, with the CO2 group (n = 30) and the air group (n = 30) undergoing CO2 insufflation and air insufflation in the ESE, respectively. The end-tidal CO2 level (pETCO2) was observed at 4 time points: at the beginning of ESE, at total removal of the tumors, at completed wound management, and 10 min after ESE. Additionally, the patients’ experience of pain at 1,3,6 and 24 h after the examination was registered using a visual analog scale (VAS) .RESULTS: Both the CO2 group and air group were Wherein no significant differences in PetCO2 values ​​before and after the procedure (P> 0.05) .However, the pain scores after the ESE at different time points in the CO2 group will significantly compared with the a ir group (1 h: 21.2 ± 3.4 vs 61.5 ± 1.7; 3 h: 8.5 ± 0.7 vs 42.9 ± 1.3; 6 h: 4.4 ± 1.6 vs 27.6 ± 1.2; 24 h: 2.3 ± 0.4 vs 21.4 ± 0.7, P <0.05 ). While, the percentage of VAS scores of 0 in the CO2 group after 1, 3, 6 and 24 h was significantly higher than that in the air group (60.7 ± 1.4 vs 18.9 ± 1.5, 81.5 ± 2.3 vs 20.6 ± 1.2, 89.2 ± 0.7 vs 36.8 ± 0.9, 91.3 ± 0.8 vs 63.8 ± 1.3, respectively, P <0.05) .Moreover, the condition of the CO2 group was better than that of the air group with respect to anal exsufflation.CONCLUSION: Insufflation of CO2 in the ESE of gastrointestinal stromal tumors will not cause CO2 retention and it may significantly reduce the level of pain, thus it is safe and effective.