A Randomized Prospective Trial Comparing Unsedated Esophagoscopy via Transnasal and Transoral Routes Using a 4-mm Video Endoscope with Conventional Endoscopy with Sedation

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and Study Aims: Unsedated upper endoscopy is an attractive alternative to conventional sedated endoscopy because it can reduce the cost, complications, and recovery time of the procedure. However, it has not gained widespread acceptance in the United States. A prototype 4-mm-diameter video esophagoscope is available. Our aims were to compare unsedated esophagoscopy using this 4-mm esophagoscope with conventional sedated endoscopy with regard to diagnostic accuracy and patient tolerance, to determine the optimal intubation route (transnasal vs. transoral), and to identify the predictors of tolerance of unsedated endoscopy.
Patients and Methods: Outpatients presenting for conventional endoscopy were randomized to undergo unsedated esophagoscopy by either the transnasal or the transoral route, followed by conventional endoscopy. The diagnostic findings, optical quality, and patient tolerance scores were assessed.
Results: A total of 137 patients were approached and 90 (65.6 %) were randomized to undergo esophagoscopy by the transnasal route (n = 44) or by the transoral route (n = 46) before undergoing conventional esophagoscopy. Patient tolerance of unsedated esophagoscopy was comparable to that of conventional endoscopy. The transnasal route was better tolerated than the transoral route, except with respect to pain, and 93.2 % in transnasal group and 91.3 % in transoral group were willing to have the procedure again. The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy using the 4-mm video endoscope was similar to that of standard endoscopy. Patients who tolerated the procedure well had lower preprocedure anxiety scores (29 vs. 42.5, P = 0.021) and a higher body mass index (31.5 kg/m² vs. 28 kg/m², P = 0.029) than the other patients.
Conclusions: Unsedated esophagoscopy with a 4-mm esophagoscope was well tolerated and has a level of diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of conventional endoscopy. Factors associated with good tolerance of unsedated esophagoscopy were low anxiety levels, high body mass index, and use of the transnasal route. Unsedated endoscopy may be offered to a selected group of patients based on these criteria.

References

• 1 Center for Disease Control and Prevention . National Vital Statistics Reports. Number of ambulatory and inpatient procedures by procedure category and location: United States, 1996.  Natl Vital Stat Rep. 1998;  13 139
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Medicare costs of upper endoscopy with and without biopsy .Available from:. http://cms.hhs.gov
  Google Scholar
• 3 Mokhashi M S, Hawes R H. Struggling towards easier endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 432-440
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Silvis S E, Nebel O, Rogers G. et al . Endoscopic complications: results of 1974 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey.  JAMA. 1976;  235 928-930
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Bell G D. Review article: premedication and intravenous sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1990;  4 103-122
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Rozen P, Fireman Z, Gilat T. The causes of hypoxemia in elderly patients during endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1982;  28 243-246
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Rozen P, Fireman Z, Gilat T. Arterial oxygen tension changes in elderly patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy II: influence of the narcotic premedication and endoscope diameter.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1981;  16 299-303
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Rimmer K P, Graham K, Whitelaw W A. et al . Mechanisms of hypoxia during panendoscopy.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 1989;  11 17-22
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Zaman A, Hahn M, Hapke R. et al . A randomized trial of peroral versus transnasal unsedated endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 279-284
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Craig A, Hanlon J, Dent J. et al . A comparison of transnasal and transoral endoscopy with small-diameter endoscopes in unsedated patients.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 292-296
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Rey J F, Duforest D, Marek T A. Prospective comparison of nasal versus oral insertion of a thin video endoscope in healthy volunteers.  Endoscopy. 1996;  28 436-437
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Dumortier J, Ponchon T, Scoazec J Y. et al . Prospective evaluation of transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy: feasibility and study of performance and tolerance.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 285-291
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Zaman A, Hapke R, Sahagun G. et al . Unsedated peroral endoscopy with a video ultrathin endoscope: patient acceptance, tolerance and diagnostic accuracy.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;  93 1260-1263
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Sorbi D, Gostout C J, Henry J. et al . Unsedated small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) versus conventional EGD: a comparative study.  Gastroenterology. 1999;  117 1301-1307
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Dean R, Dua K, Massey B. et al . A comparative study of unsedated transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy and conventional EGD.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 422-424
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Bampton P A, Reid D P, Johnson R D. et al . A comparison of transnasal and transoral oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.  J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998;  13 579-584
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Faulx A L, Catanzaro A, Zyzanski S. et al . Patient tolerance and acceptance of unsedated ultra-thin esophagoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 620-623
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Mulcahy H E, Kelly P, Banks M R. et al . Factors associated with tolerance to, and discomfort with unsedated diagnostic gastroscopy.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 2001;  36 1352-1357
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Froehlich F, Schwizer W, Thorens J. et al . Conscious sedation for gastroscopy: patient tolerance and cardiorespiratory parameters.  Gastroenterology. 1995;  108 697-704
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Hedenbro J L, Lindblom A. Patient attitudes to sedation for diagnostic upper endoscopy.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1991;  26 115-120
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Reed M WR, O’Leary D, Duncan J L. et al . Effects of sedation and supplemental oxygen during upper alimentary tract endoscopy.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1993;  28 319-322
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Hedenbro J L, Ekelund M. Short note: endoscopic perforation in unsedated patients undergoing endoscopy.  Br J Surg. 1996;  83 845-846
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Shaker R, Bowser M, Hogan W J. et al . Videoendoscopic characterization of abnormalities in pharyngeal phase of swallowing.  Gastroenterology. 1991;  100 A494
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Kulling D, Bauerfiend P, Fried M. Transnasal versus transoral endoscopy for the placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in critically ill patients.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 506-510
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Fregonese D, Di Falco G. Through the nose gastroscopy for the placement of feeding tubes.  Endoscopy. 1993;  25 539-541
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Revill S I, Robinson J O, Rosen M. et al . The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain.  Anesthesia. 1976;  31 1191-1198
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Morrow J B, Zuccaro G Jr, Conwell D L. et al . Sedation for colonoscopy using a single bolus is safe, effective and efficient: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;  95 2242-2247
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Vargo J J, Zuccaro G Jr, Dumot J A. et al . Gastroenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial.  Gastroenterology. 2002;  123 8-16
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Mulcahy H E, Riches A, Kiely M. et al . A prospective controlled trial of an ultra-thin versus a conventional endoscope in unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 311-316
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Mokhashi M, Van Velse A, Sahai A V. et al . Large-scale screening for reflux esophagitis and Barrett’s: a reality with a new battery-powered, super-thin stand-alone esophagoscope?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 AB157
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Khimich S. Level of sensitivity of pain in patients with obesity.  Acta Chir Hung. 1997;  36 166-167
  PubMedGoogle Scholar

G. Zuccaro Jr, M. D.

Department of Gastroenterology A30, Cleveland Clinic Foundation

9500 Euclid Avenue · OH 44195 Cleveland · Ohio · USA

Fax: +1-216-444-6284

Email: zuccarg@ccf.org