BACKGROUND: Potential advantages of unsedated endoscopy include the prevention of side effects or morbidity related to the use of sedative drugs, less intensive patient monitoring, and less expense. We compared transnasal (T-EGD) with peroral (P-EGD) unsedated endoscopy by using an ultrathin video instrument with respect to patient tolerance and acceptance. METHOD: Patients were randomized to T-EGD or P-EGD. If the initial route of insertion failed, the patient was crossed over to the other route. If this also failed, the patient underwent endoscopy under conscious sedation with an ultrathin instrument. A questionnaire for tolerance was completed by the patient (a validated 0-10 scale where "0" represents none/well tolerated and "10" represents severe/poorly tolerated). RESULTS: Of 105 recruited patients, 60 consented to undergo unsedated endoscopy. There were 20 men and 11 women (mean age 45 years) in the P-EGD group and 15 men and 14 women (mean age 48 years) in the T-EGD group. Of 35 total P-EGD patients (4 were crossed over T-EGD patients), 34 (97%) completed an unsedated examination. Of 29 T-EGD patients, 25 (86%) had a complete examination. Three T-EGD examinations failed for anatomical reasons; all 3 patients when crossed over to the P-EGD route had a successful examination. One patient was unable to tolerate either route. Between the P-EGD and the T-EGD groups, pre-procedure anxiety (3.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.6), discomfort during insertion (2.1 +/- 0.5 vs 3.3 +/- 0.7), gagging (4.7 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.2 +/- 0. 6), and overall tolerance (2.4 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.8 +/- 0.7) were similar (p > 0.05). However, discomfort on insertion was significantly greater in the T-EGD versus the P-EGD group (4.4 +/- 0.6 vs. 2.7 +/- 0.5: p < 0. 05). Eighty-nine percent of P-EGD patients and 69% of T-EGD patients, p = 0.07, were willing to undergo unsedated endoscopy in the future. CONCLUSION: T-EGD patients experienced significantly more pain on insertion than did P-EGD patients. Otherwise, unsedated endoscopy by either the transnasal or the peroral route is generally well tolerated. In this study it was completed in 59 of 60 patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Potential advantages of unsedated endoscopy include the prevention of side effects or morbidity related to the use of sedative drugs, less intensive patient monitoring, and less expense. We compared transnasal (T-EGD) with peroral (P-EGD) unsedated endoscopy by using an ultrathin video instrument with respect to patient tolerance and acceptance. METHOD:Patients were randomized to T-EGD or P-EGD. If the initial route of insertion failed, the patient was crossed over to the other route. If this also failed, the patient underwent endoscopy under conscious sedation with an ultrathin instrument. A questionnaire for tolerance was completed by the patient (a validated 0-10 scale where "0" represents none/well tolerated and "10" represents severe/poorly tolerated). RESULTS: Of 105 recruited patients, 60 consented to undergo unsedated endoscopy. There were 20 men and 11 women (mean age 45 years) in the P-EGD group and 15 men and 14 women (mean age 48 years) in the T-EGD group. Of 35 total P-EGDpatients (4 were crossed over T-EGD patients), 34 (97%) completed an unsedated examination. Of 29 T-EGD patients, 25 (86%) had a complete examination. Three T-EGD examinations failed for anatomical reasons; all 3 patients when crossed over to the P-EGD route had a successful examination. One patient was unable to tolerate either route. Between the P-EGD and the T-EGD groups, pre-procedure anxiety (3.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.6), discomfort during insertion (2.1 +/- 0.5 vs 3.3 +/- 0.7), gagging (4.7 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.2 +/- 0. 6), and overall tolerance (2.4 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.8 +/- 0.7) were similar (p > 0.05). However, discomfort on insertion was significantly greater in the T-EGD versus the P-EGD group (4.4 +/- 0.6 vs. 2.7 +/- 0.5: p < 0. 05). Eighty-nine percent of P-EGDpatients and 69% of T-EGD patients, p = 0.07, were willing to undergo unsedated endoscopy in the future. CONCLUSION: T-EGD patients experienced significantly more pain on insertion than did P-EGDpatients. Otherwise, unsedated endoscopy by either the transnasal or the peroral route is generally well tolerated. In this study it was completed in 59 of 60 patients.
Authors: Justin Cheung; Karen Goodman; Robert Bailey; Richard Fedorak; John Morse; Mario Millan; Tom Guzowski; Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Sarmed S Sami; Kelly T Dunagan; Michele L Johnson; Cathy D Schleck; Nilay D Shah; Alan R Zinsmeister; Louis-Michel Wongkeesong; Kenneth K Wang; David A Katzka; Krish Ragunath; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 10.864