Literature DB >> 19191853

A study comparing tolerability, satisfaction and acceptance of three different techniques for esophageal endoscopy: sedated conventional, unsedated peroral ultra thin, and esophageal capsule.

G Nakos1, S Karagiannis, S Ballas, P Galanis, G Alevizopoulos, A Nakos, C Mavrogiannis.   

Abstract

Three methods of esophagoscopy are available until now: sedated conventional endoscopy, unsedated ultrathin endoscopy, and esophageal capsule endoscopy. The three methods carry comparable diagnostic accuracy and different complication rates. Although all of them have been found well accepted from patients, no comparative study comprising the three techniques has been published. The aim of this study was to compare the three methods of esophagoscopy regarding tolerability, satisfaction, and acceptance. Twenty patients with large esophageal varices and 10 with gastroesophageal reflux disease were prospectively included. All patients underwent consecutively sedated conventional endoscopy, unsedated ultrathin endoscopy, and esophageal capsule endoscopy. After each procedure, patients completed a seven-item questionnaire. The total positive attitude of patients toward all methods was high. However, statistical analysis revealed the following differences in favor of esophageal capsule endoscopy: (i) total positive attitude has been found higher (chi(2)= 18.2, df = 2, P= 0.00), (ii) less patients felt pain (chi(2)= 6.9, df = 2, P= 0.03) and discomfort (chi(2)= 22.1, df = 2, P= 0.00), (iii) less patients experienced difficulty (chi(2)= 13.7, df = 2, P= 0.01), and (iv) more patients were willing to undergo esophageal capsule endoscopy in the future (chi(2)= 12.1, df = 2, P= 0.002). Esophageal capsule endoscopy was characterized by a more positive general attitude and caused less pain and discomfort. Sedated conventional endoscopy has been found more difficult. More patients would repeat esophageal capsule endoscopy in the future. Patients' total position for all three available techniques for esophageal endoscopy was excellent and renders the observed advantage of esophageal capsule endoscopy over both sedated conventional and unsedated ultrathin endoscopy a statistical finding without a real clinical benefit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19191853     DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2008.00932.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Esophagus        ISSN: 1120-8694            Impact factor:   3.429


  3 in total

1.  Update on endoscopic diagnosis, management and surveillance strategies of esophageal diseases.

Authors:  Fernando Fornari; Rafaela Wagner
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-04-16

2.  Defining the threshold: new data on the ability of capsule endoscopy to discriminate the size of esophageal varices.

Authors:  Ian Schreibman; Kevin Meitz; Allen R Kunselman; Matthew Downey; Tri Le; Thomas Riley
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Multidetector computed tomography versus platelet/spleen diameter ratio as methods for the detection of gastroesophageal varices.

Authors:  Andreas Karatzas; Christos Triantos; Maria Kalafateli; Misiel Marzigie; Chryssoula Labropoulou-Karatza; Konstantinos Thomopoulos; Theodoros Petsas; Christina Kalogeropoulou
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.