BACKGROUND: With a pediatric endoscope, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be performed via a nasal route in adults. To evaluate this new procedure, we conducted a randomized comparative study of the feasibility of diagnostic transnasal EGD and assessed the factors influencing its quality and tolerance (endoscope diameter or route). METHODS:Transnasal EGD was attempted in 100 patients to assess its feasibility. For the analysis of quality and tolerance, 150 patients were randomized as follows into 3 groups according to the route of examinations: (1) oral route with 9.8 mm diameter standard videoendoscope; (2) oral route with 6.0 mm diameter pediatric videoendoscope; (3) transnasal route with 6.0 mm diameter pediatric videoendoscope. The operator assessed the quality of examination by standard scores. Patients quantified pain intensity, nausea, and choking sensation. RESULTS:Transnasal EGD was feasible in 82% of patients. The quality of the examination was significantly lower with pediatric endoscope. No difference was noted concerning pain intensity, but nausea and choking sensation were significantly reduced when the nasal route was used. CONCLUSIONS:Transnasal EGD is feasible in the routine practice of diagnostic EGD. The nasal route, and not endoscope diameter (6.0 mm vs 9.8 mm diameter), is the determining factor that explains increased patient tolerance during transnasal EGD. Technical improvements in pediatric videoendoscopes are required.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: With a pediatric endoscope, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be performed via a nasal route in adults. To evaluate this new procedure, we conducted a randomized comparative study of the feasibility of diagnostic transnasal EGD and assessed the factors influencing its quality and tolerance (endoscope diameter or route). METHODS: Transnasal EGD was attempted in 100 patients to assess its feasibility. For the analysis of quality and tolerance, 150 patients were randomized as follows into 3 groups according to the route of examinations: (1) oral route with 9.8 mm diameter standard videoendoscope; (2) oral route with 6.0 mm diameter pediatric videoendoscope; (3) transnasal route with 6.0 mm diameter pediatric videoendoscope. The operator assessed the quality of examination by standard scores. Patients quantified pain intensity, nausea, and choking sensation. RESULTS: Transnasal EGD was feasible in 82% of patients. The quality of the examination was significantly lower with pediatric endoscope. No difference was noted concerning pain intensity, but nausea and choking sensation were significantly reduced when the nasal route was used. CONCLUSIONS: Transnasal EGD is feasible in the routine practice of diagnostic EGD. The nasal route, and not endoscope diameter (6.0 mm vs 9.8 mm diameter), is the determining factor that explains increased patient tolerance during transnasal EGD. Technical improvements in pediatric videoendoscopes are required.
Authors: Anne F Peery; Toshitaka Hoppo; Katherine S Garman; Evan S Dellon; Norma Daugherty; Susan Bream; Alejandro F Sanz; Jon Davison; Melissa Spacek; Diane Connors; Ashley L Faulx; Amitabh Chak; James D Luketich; Nicholas J Shaheen; Blair A Jobe Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Joel A Friedlander; Emily M DeBoer; Jason S Soden; Glenn T Furuta; Calies D Menard-Katcher; Dan Atkins; David M Fleischer; Robert E Kramer; Robin R Deterding; Kelley E Capocelli; Jeremy D Prager Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Katie S Nason; Thomas Murphy; Joshua Schindler; Paul H Schipper; Toshitaka Hoppo; Brian S Diggs; David A Sauer; Nicholas J Shaheen; Cynthia D Morris; Blair A Jobe Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.062