OBJECTIVE: Standard esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is costly and uses conscious sedation that cirrhotic patients may tolerate poorly. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptance of unsedated esophagoscopy with an ultrathin battery-powered endoscope (BPE) in cirrhotic patients for diagnosing esophageal varices (EV). METHODS: We first studied the prevalence of significant gastroduodenal pathology that could be missed if only esophagoscopy were performed in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver transplant evaluation. A prospective study was then done to evaluate a BPE in EV screening. Unsedated per-oral endoscopy was first done by a single endoscopist using a BPE, followed by EGD by a second endoscopist who was masked to the BPE result. A visual analog score was used to determine patient tolerance. Patients were asked about their preference for endoscopy in the future. A paired Student t test and the kappa statistic were used in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: In the retrospective study, 199 patients were reviewed; three patients (1.5%) had gastric ulcers, and two patients (1%) had duodenal ulcers. In the prospective study, 28 cirrhotic patients (16 women) were evaluated. EV were diagnosed in 14 patients with a BPE, and 13 were confirmed by standard EGD (sensitivity and negative predictive value 100%, specificity and positive predictive value 93%, kappa = 0.93). EV were graded as large in one and small in 13 patients with a BPE, but small varices diagnosed in one patient were not confirmed on EGD. Both procedures were well tolerated by all patients. Twenty-seven of 28 patients preferred unsedated endoscopy with a BPE over EGD. CONCLUSIONS: Unsedated endoscopy with a BPE is safe and well tolerated. The diagnostic accuracy of a BPE for diagnosing EV is the same as by EGD. Esophagoscopy with a BPE is a potential alternative to EGD for EV screening.
OBJECTIVE: Standard esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is costly and uses conscious sedation that cirrhotic patients may tolerate poorly. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptance of unsedated esophagoscopy with an ultrathin battery-powered endoscope (BPE) in cirrhotic patients for diagnosing esophageal varices (EV). METHODS: We first studied the prevalence of significant gastroduodenal pathology that could be missed if only esophagoscopy were performed in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver transplant evaluation. A prospective study was then done to evaluate a BPE in EV screening. Unsedated per-oral endoscopy was first done by a single endoscopist using a BPE, followed by EGD by a second endoscopist who was masked to the BPE result. A visual analog score was used to determine patient tolerance. Patients were asked about their preference for endoscopy in the future. A paired Student t test and the kappa statistic were used in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: In the retrospective study, 199 patients were reviewed; three patients (1.5%) had gastric ulcers, and two patients (1%) had duodenal ulcers. In the prospective study, 28 cirrhotic patients (16 women) were evaluated. EV were diagnosed in 14 patients with a BPE, and 13 were confirmed by standard EGD (sensitivity and negative predictive value 100%, specificity and positive predictive value 93%, kappa = 0.93). EV were graded as large in one and small in 13 patients with a BPE, but small varices diagnosed in one patient were not confirmed on EGD. Both procedures were well tolerated by all patients. Twenty-seven of 28 patients preferred unsedated endoscopy with a BPE over EGD. CONCLUSIONS: Unsedated endoscopy with a BPE is safe and well tolerated. The diagnostic accuracy of a BPE for diagnosing EV is the same as by EGD. Esophagoscopy with a BPE is a potential alternative to EGD for EV screening.