BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with a small-caliber endoscope is well tolerated by patients. However, the effect of this procedure on cardiopulmonary function has not been fully investigated. The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to investigate the effect of transnasal EGD in comparison with transoral EGD on cardiopulmonary function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study involved 450 patients referred for diagnostic EGD. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three types of unsedated EGD (150 patients per group): transnasal EGD using a small-caliber endoscope (the "XP-N" group), transoral EGD using the same small-caliber endoscope ("XP-O" group), and transoral EGD using a conventional endoscope ("XQ" group). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, and arterial oxygen saturation were monitored before, and 2, 4 and 6 minutes after intubation, and just after endoscope extubation. Gagging episodes were also counted, to determine tolerance. RESULTS: It was not possible to perform transnasal EGD in 12 patients (8.0%). A small amount of epistaxis was observed in eight (5.8%) of 138 patients who were examined successfully by transnasal EGD. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, rate-pressure product (pulse rate x systolic blood pressure/100), and the drop in arterial oxygen saturation in the XQ group were significantly greater than in the XP-N and XP-O groups at each time point. In the XP-N group, these parameters were significantly lower than those in the XP-O group at 2 minutes after intubation. Of the tree groups the number of gagging episodes was significantly lower in the XP-N group. CONCLUSION:Transnasal EGD is safer than transoral EGD as it is associated with fewer adverse effects on cardiopulmonary function and is better tolerated by patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with a small-caliber endoscope is well tolerated by patients. However, the effect of this procedure on cardiopulmonary function has not been fully investigated. The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to investigate the effect of transnasal EGD in comparison with transoral EGD on cardiopulmonary function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study involved 450 patients referred for diagnostic EGD. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three types of unsedated EGD (150 patients per group): transnasal EGD using a small-caliber endoscope (the "XP-N" group), transoral EGD using the same small-caliber endoscope ("XP-O" group), and transoral EGD using a conventional endoscope ("XQ" group). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, and arterial oxygen saturation were monitored before, and 2, 4 and 6 minutes after intubation, and just after endoscope extubation. Gagging episodes were also counted, to determine tolerance. RESULTS: It was not possible to perform transnasal EGD in 12 patients (8.0%). A small amount of epistaxis was observed in eight (5.8%) of 138 patients who were examined successfully by transnasal EGD. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, rate-pressure product (pulse rate x systolic blood pressure/100), and the drop in arterial oxygen saturation in the XQ group were significantly greater than in the XP-N and XP-O groups at each time point. In the XP-N group, these parameters were significantly lower than those in the XP-O group at 2 minutes after intubation. Of the tree groups the number of gagging episodes was significantly lower in the XP-N group. CONCLUSION: Transnasal EGD is safer than transoral EGD as it is associated with fewer adverse effects on cardiopulmonary function and is better tolerated by patients.