AIM: To develop a new continuous suction mouthpiece (CSM) and evaluate its usefulness for screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). METHODS: A total of 196 patients who were scheduled to undergo screening EGD were assigned to one of two groups: a group using the CSM and a group using a conventional mouthpiece. Extent of salivary flow, frequency of saliva suction, number of choking episodes during the examination, and incidence of aspiration pneumonia after the examination were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Adverse events during and after EGD were also examined. In addition, the oral cavity was meticulously examined after the EGD. RESULTS: The same number of patients was randomly allocated to each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in sex, age, biopsy procedure, duration of procedure and depth of sedation. Aspiration pneumonia and other significant adverse events were not observed in either group. The grade of extent of salivary flow was significantly lower in patients with the CSM than in patients with the conventional mouthpiece (P < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference, less frequent suctioning and fewer choking episodes were observed in patients with the CSM than in patients with the conventional mouthpiece (P = 0.082 and P = 0.084, respectively). In addition, there were no patients in the CSM group who required saliva suctioning during the procedure. CONCLUSION: Use of the CSM during screening EGD can reduce the extent of salivary flow. The device is expected to reduce complications and contamination with saliva.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To develop a new continuous suction mouthpiece (CSM) and evaluate its usefulness for screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). METHODS: A total of 196 patients who were scheduled to undergo screening EGD were assigned to one of two groups: a group using the CSM and a group using a conventional mouthpiece. Extent of salivary flow, frequency of saliva suction, number of choking episodes during the examination, and incidence of aspiration pneumonia after the examination were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Adverse events during and after EGD were also examined. In addition, the oral cavity was meticulously examined after the EGD. RESULTS: The same number of patients was randomly allocated to each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in sex, age, biopsy procedure, duration of procedure and depth of sedation. Aspiration pneumonia and other significant adverse events were not observed in either group. The grade of extent of salivary flow was significantly lower in patients with the CSM than in patients with the conventional mouthpiece (P < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference, less frequent suctioning and fewer choking episodes were observed in patients with the CSM than in patients with the conventional mouthpiece (P = 0.082 and P = 0.084, respectively). In addition, there were no patients in the CSM group who required saliva suctioning during the procedure. CONCLUSION: Use of the CSM during screening EGD can reduce the extent of salivary flow. The device is expected to reduce complications and contamination with saliva.