Unsedated ultrathin EGD is well accepted when compared with conventional sedated EGD: a multicenter randomized trial.

Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 13.93). 12/2003; 125(6):1606-12. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2003.08.034
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In the United States, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is usually performed using intravenous sedation. Sedation increases the rate of both complications and costs of endoscopy. Unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) using conventional 8-11-mm endoscopes is an alternative to sedated endoscopy but is generally perceived as unacceptable to many American patients. Unsedated EGD using ultrathin 5-6-mm endoscopes is better tolerated. A randomized trial comparing unsedated ultrathin EGD (UT-EGD) with sedated conventional EGD (C-EGD) in a diverse American population is needed.
In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 80 patients scheduled to undergo elective outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated UT-EGD or sedated C-EGD. The study was carried out at San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Liver and Digestive Health Medical Clinic, San Jose.
Baseline characteristics of patients randomized to unsedated UT-EGD and sedated C-EGD were similar. Moreover, there were no significant differences in overall patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat endoscopy in the same manner among the 2 study groups. There was, however, a significant difference in median total procedure time between the 2 study groups of 1.5 hours (P < 0.0001). The mean (+/- SD) total procedure cost was 512.4 US dollars (+/- 100.8 US dollars) for sedated C-EGD and 328.6 US dollars (+/- 70.3 US dollars) for unsedated UT-EGD (P < 0.0001).
Patients undergoing unsedated UT-EGD are as satisfied as patients undergoing sedated C-EGD and are just as willing to repeat an unsedated UT-EGD. Unsedated UT-EGD was also faster, less costly, and may allow greater accessibility to this procedure.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Differences in patient tolerance, acceptance, and satisfaction of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) between transnasal (TN) and peroral (PO) routes using a 5-mm video endoscope. A total of 220 enrolled patients were assigned randomly to two groups undergoing EGD-110 patients each for TN and PO. The successful rate, procedure time, and adverse events were recorded. After the procedure, patients answered a validated questionnaire of tolerance, acceptance, and satisfaction. There were 6 failures (5.7%) of nasal intubation and two nasal bleeding (2%) among 105 TN-EGD procedures. All PO patients (n=102) completed EGD successfully without adverse event. Compared to PO, the procedure of TN achieved lower successful rate (94% vs. 100%, p=0.01), was complicated with epistaxis (2% vs. 0%) and took longer (mean±SD 19.9±6.1min vs. 16.8±6.4min, p=0.0001). The patients undergoing TN-EGD indicated less discomfort during passing pharynx (scores of 2.1±2.0 vs. 3.1±2.6, p=0.011) but more pain during inserting scope (scores of 2.2±1.6 vs. 1.5±1.8, p=0.0001). Eventually, there were no significant differences between TN and PO regarding the overall procedure discomfort (scores of 10.7±6.6 vs. 11.1±7.8 scores, p=0.9), satisfaction (scores of 41.2±4.2 vs. 41.3±4.6, p=0.91), and acceptability (87.8% vs. 94.2%, p=0.91). PO intubation seems an excellent alternative method when using a 5-mm ultrathin endoscopy because it achieves comparable patient tolerance, acceptance, and satisfaction as TN intubation, takes less time and causes lower intubation failure and epistaxis.
    Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 06/2014; 113(6):371-6. DOI:10.1016/j.jfma.2012.06.003 · 1.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Transnasal endoscopy (TNE) with ultrathin endoscopes has been advocated as an attractive alternative, for diagnostic upper endoscopy.AimTo assess tolerability, acceptability and quality of TNE, in comparison with standard upper endoscopy (SOGD, standard oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy) under local anaesthetic.Methods We prospectively recruited 157 patients (83 females/74 males) mean age 57 years. The Fujinon EG530N (5.9 mm) and EG530WR (9.4 mm) endoscopes were used. The endoscopist and all patients completed detailed questionnaires regarding tolerability, acceptance and quality of endoscopy using standard visual analogue scales (VAS). Oxygen saturation (SaO2), heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were recorded. Quality of biopsies was evaluated.ResultsAnalysis included 161 procedures (TNE:79, SOGD:82) with duodenal intubation achieved in all patients. VAS scores for patient comfort were significantly better in the TNE group (7.3 vs. 5.3 respectively, P < 0.001). Twenty patients with previous experience of standard endoscopy were randomised to TNE and 19 of them (95.5%) preferred the TNE. Gagging was significantly less in the TNE group (0.12 vs. 3.41 respectively, P < 0.001). Cardiovascular stress was significantly less in the TNE group irrespective of the degree of gagging or comfort. TNE biopsies were smaller, but adequate for definitive diagnosis, similarly to standard endoscopy.Conclusions Transnasal endoscopy is superior to SOGD in terms of comfort and patient acceptance with significantly less cardiovascular stress. TNE can routinely be used as alternative to SOGD under local anaesthetic, for diagnosis and should be preferentially offered in cardiorespiratory compromised patients.
    Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 07/2014; 40(5). DOI:10.1111/apt.12866 · 4.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 09/2014; 40(6). DOI:10.1111/apt.12897 · 4.55 Impact Factor