CURRENT STATUS AND EVALUATION OF TRANSNASAL ESOPHAGOGASTRODUODENOSCOPY

We reviewed the current status of transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with regard to tolerance, safety, feasibility and accuracy. Comparison of standard and ultrathin scopes and recently reported endoscopic techniques with transnasal insertion are also described as well as the current status of transnasal EGD in European countries compared with Japan. As several studies concluded that transnasal EGD can facilitate comfortable endoscopy without the need for sedative drugs, it has been tried in countries in which a relatively high number of unsedated EGD are carried out in daily practice. Long‐tube intubation of the jejunum with the assistance of transnasal EGD will also be a part of the daily practice in the near future. However, its safety and accuracy should be further investigated. Even a standard scope whose charge‐coupled device (CCD) has the same resolution as an ultrathin scope is superior to an ultrathin scope in terms of luminosity and resolution. Given the small number of procedures reported to date, the absolute complication rate of unsedated transnasal EGD is unknown. Methods of nasal anesthesia, as well as informed consent, indications and contraindications for transnasal EGD are not standardized. A guideline of transnasal EGD is under discussion by the Japanese Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.     

Patient tolerance and acceptance of unsedated ultrathin esophagoscopy

BACKGROUND: Unsedated endoscopy has not gained wide acceptance in the United States. Factors that may predict tolerance and acceptance of unsedated endoscopy are ill defined. METHODS: Outpatients referred for standard EGD were recruited to undergo unsedated ultrathin esophagoscopy (UUE) with a new 3.1-mm battery-powered esophagoscope before sedated EGD. They rated preprocedure and postprocedure anxiety levels with the Profile of Mood States Tension/Anxiety subscale (POMS-SF T/A). They also rated symptoms and overall acceptability and listed procedural preference between EGD and UUE. Patients who refused UUE noted a reason for refusal and also completed the anxiety questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty-two of 98 patients recruited agreed to participate, and underwent both UUE and EGD. Patients who refused UUE were significantly more anxious (mean anxiety score, 8.2 vs. 4.5, p < 0.005). Participants reported no significant difference between preprocedural (4.6 vs. 5.3) or postprocedural (3.5 vs. 2.6) anxiety for UUE versus standard EGD. After undergoing both procedures, only 46% stated they would prefer UUE to EGD in the future. Patients who chose the peroral approach were more likely to prefer UUE than those who chose the transnasal approach (58% vs. 23%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patient acceptance of unsedated endoscopy even with an ultrathin instrument is limited. Anxiety assessment by the POMS-SF T/A can identify patients willing to undergo UUE. Patients who choose transoral UUE may be more willing to repeat the procedure.     

Prospective evaluation of a new ultrathin one-plane bending videoendoscope for transnasal EGD: a comparative study on performance and tolerance

BACKGROUND: EGD, with small-diameter endoscopes, is routinely performed via a nasal route in adults. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new ultrathin one-plane bending videoendoscope for transnasal EGD. DESIGN: Single center, prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Edouard Herriot University Hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 122 outpatients (median age, 49 years [18-81 years], 62 men and 60 women) were randomized into 2 groups (on a 2:1 basis) according to the endoscope used: (1) a standard 5.9-mm-diameter videoendoscope (80 patients) or (2) a one-plane bending high resolution 4.9-mm-diameter videoendoscope (42 patients). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The operator assessed the quality of examination by using standard scores or a 100-mm visual scale. Patients quantified tolerance by using a 100-mm visual scale. RESULTS: The duration of the procedure was the same in each group. The feasibility of transnasal insertion was significantly higher when using the 4.9-mm-diameter endoscope (97.61% [41/42 patients] vs 88.75% [71/80 patients], P<.05). The tolerance of EGD was significantly better in the group with the small videoendoscope, for global discomfort, pain, belching, and bloating. Similarly, acceptation of a new EGD in similar conditions was higher in group 2 (92.9% vs 80%, P<.05). The quality of examination (global, lavage, inflation, suction) was not different between the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: Evaluation of patient tolerance and quality of examination was based on subjective features. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of a new ultrathin one-plane bending videoendoscope represents a major technical improvement for transnasal EGD, which significantly improves both feasibility and patient tolerance, without affecting the quality of the examination.     

Unsedated Peroral Endoscopy With a Video Ultrathin Endoscope: Patient Acceptance, Tolerance, and Diagnostic Accuracy

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess patient tolerance of unsedated routine upper endoscopy using a 6-mm ultrathin (UT) video endoscope (Olympus XGIF-N200H) and to compare its optical quality to a standard endoscope (Olympus GIF100).
Methods: A total of 62 outpatients were recruited for unsedated UT endoscopy using topical spray followed by sedated endoscopy using a standard endoscope. After unsedated endoscopy, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing tolerance. When both endoscopies were completed, the endoscopist recorded findings and optical quality of the UT.
Results: Of 62 patients, 19 refused unsedated endoscopy because of anxiety (12) , fear of gagging (3) , and unwillingness to be study patients (4) . Tolerance: Of 43 patients, 37 (86%) had a complete, unsedated UT exam (five patients did not have a GIF100 exam). During insertion, 60% of the patients reported none/mild discomfort, whereas, during the remainder of the examination, 73% had none/mild discomfort. Of 37 patients, 30 (81%) were willing to undergo future unsedated endoscopy with the UT and they tolerated UT endoscopy better than the patients who were unwilling (none/mild discomfort: 83% vs 29%). Of 43 patients, six (14%) failed UT endoscopy because of severe gagging (all were male, mean age 44 yr). Optics: Optical quality was rated as good 84%, 65%, and 78% of the time in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum, respectively. Optical quality was diminished by excessive fluid and tenacious secretions. The UT missed five of 59 lesions: three hiatal hernias and two gastric erosions.
Conclusion: A total of 69% of outpatients agreed to undergo peroral unsedated endoscopy with a UT endoscope. A total of 86% of patients tolerated a complete unsedated examination, and 81% of these were willing to undergo future unsedated examinations. Diagnostic accuracy of this ultrathin video endoscope was good, with 92% of lesions discovered when compared with a standard instrument.     

Unsedated transnasal small-caliber esophagogastroduoden oscopy in elderly and bedridden patients

AIM: To evaluate the safety of unsedated transnasal small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for elderly and critically ill bedridden patients.METHODS: One prospective randomized comparative study and one crossover comparative study between transnasal small-caliber EGD and transoral conventional EGD was done (Study 1). For the comparative study,we enrolled 240 elderly patients aged > 65 years old.For the crossover analysis, we enrolled 30 bedridden patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy(PEG) (Study 2). We evaluated cardiopulmonary effects by measuring arterial oxygen saturation (SpO_2) and calculating the rate-pressure product (RPP) (pulse rate × systolic blood pressure/100) at baseline, 2 and 5 min after endoscopic intubation in Study 1. To assess the risk for endoscopy-related aspiration pneumonia during EGD, we also measured blood leukocyte counts and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels before and 3 d after EGD in Study 2.RESULTS: In Study 1, we observed significant decreases in SpO_2 during conventional transoral EGD,but not during transnasal small-caliber EGD (0.24% vs-0.24% after 2 min, and 0.18% vs -0.29% after 5 min,P = 0.034, P = 0.044). Significant differences of the RPP were not found between conventional transoral and transnasal small-caliber EGD. In Study 2, crossover analysis showed statistically significant increases of the RPP at 2 min after intubation and the end of endoscopy (26.8 and 34.6 vs 3.1 and 15.2, P = 0.044, P = 0.046),and decreases of SpO_2 (-0.8% vs -0.1%, P = 0.042) during EGD with transoral conventional in comparison with transnasal small-caliber endoscopy. Thus, for bedridden patients with PEG feeding, who were examined in the supine position, transoral conventional EGD more severely suppressed cardiopulmonary function than transnasal small-caliber EGD. There were also significant increases in the markers of inflammation,blood leukocyte counts and serum CRP values, in bedridden patients after transoral conventional EGD, but not after transnasal small-caliber EGD performed with the patient in the supine position. Leukocyte count increased from 6053 ± 1975/L to 6900 ± 3392/L ( P = 0.0008) and CRP values increased from 0.93 ± 0.24 to 2.49 ± 0.91 mg/dL ( P = 0.0005) at 3 d after transoral conventional EGD. Aspiration pneumonia, possibly caused by the endoscopic examination, was found subsequently in two of 30 patients after transoral conventional EGD.CONCLUSION: Transnasal small-caliber EGD is a safer method than transoral conventional EGD in critically ill,bedridden patients who are undergoing PEG feeding.     

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy: a Canadian experience in daily practice.

BACKGROUND: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the most frequently performed diagnostic procedure for upper gastrointestinal disorders. The procedure is routinely performed under conscious sedation in North America. A significant proportion of morbidity and mortality associated with EGD is related to hypoxia due to conscious sedation. The use of sedation is also associated with an increase in cost, loss of work on the day of endoscopy and the need for the patient to be accompanied home after the procedure. Transnasal endoscopy has advantages such as no sedation and less patient monitoring, nursing time and expenses than conventional per oral EGD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of unsedated transnasal EGD in daily practice. METHODS: Patients due to undergo EGD were given a choice of either unsedated transnasal EGD or per oral EGD with sedation. Patients who chose unsedated transnasal EGD had the procedure performed in the office by a senior gastroenterologist with experience in transnasal EGD. All procedures were performed using a small-calibre esophagogastroduodenoscope. All patients were surveyed using a patient satisfaction questionnaire, and were asked to give specific scores in terms of choking sensation, sore throat, nasal discomfort and abdominal discomfort. All variables were assessed by scores between 0 and 10, with 10 indicating the most severe degree of each variable. Any complications were also recorded. RESULTS: Between March 2002 and August 2003, 231 patients underwent transnasal EGD. The median age of the patients was 57 years (range 15 to 87 years). Complete examinations were possible in 98% of patients. Patients reported a high degree of acceptability (mean score 6.6, range 1 to 10) and low degrees of choking sensation (mean 1.8, range 0 to 10), nasal discomfort (mean 1.7, range 0 to 10), sore throat (mean 0.8, range 0 to 9) and abdominal discomfort (mean 1.1, range 0 to 10). The only complications reported by the patients were epistaxis (n=2, 0.9%) and sinusitis (n=1, 0.4%). Some patients also reported transient light-headedness (n=12, 5%) and mucous discharge (n=2, 0.9%). When asked, 185 patients (88%) stated that they were willing to undergo the same procedure in the future if medically indicated. Of the 84 patients who had conventional EGD under conscious sedation in the past, 52 patients (62%) preferred transnasal EGD without sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Transnasal EGD is generally well tolerated, feasible and safe. It can be performed with topical anesthesia in an outpatient setting. The low complication rate, high patient satisfaction and potential cost savings make transnasal endoscopy an attractive alternative to conventional EGD to screen patients for upper gastrointestinal tract diseases.     

CARDIOVASCULAR TOLERANCE AND AUTONOMIC NERVOUS RESPONSES IN UNSEDATED UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL SMALL‐CALIBER ENDOSCOPY: A COMPARISON BETWEEN TRANSNASAL AND PERORAL PROCEDURES WITH NEWLY DEVELOPED MOUTHPIECE

Background: Transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with small‐caliber endoscopy appears to be less stressful to the cardiovascular system and has good patient tolerance. ENDO LEADER, a newly developed mouthpiece for peroral EGD with small‐caliber endoscopy, is expected to reduce patient stress. We compared the patient acceptance, cardiovascular tolerance and autonomic nervous responses between transnasal EGD and peroral EGD with ENDO LEADER. Patients and Methods: A total of 130 patients (transnasal group, 77; peroral group, 53) were enrolled. Pulse rate (P), blood pressure (BP), and peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO₂) were monitored. Acceptance of EGD was also assessed. Autonomic nervous responses were evaluated through analysis of heart rate variability using amplitude of the high‐frequency component (HF) and low‐frequency‐to‐high‐frequency power ratio (LF/HF) as indices of cardiac vagal activity and sympathetic activity, respectively. Results: Analysis of patient acceptance showed no differences between the two groups, except with regard to nasal pain. Increases in BP and P between before and during EGD examination were significantly higher in the peroral group. Although throat pain and overall tolerance scores were significantly correlated with ΔBP and ΔP, no correlations with nasal pain score were noted. Heart rate variability analysis revealed that heart rate increased significantly in the peroral group, but there were no differences in ΔHF or ΔLF/HF between the two groups. Conclusions: Patient acceptance was not significantly different between the transnasal and peroral with ENDO LEADER groups; however, transnasal EGD appears to be less stressful to the sympathetic nervous system, leading to smaller elevations in BP, P and heart rate.     

Unsedated transnasal EGD in daily practice: results with 1100 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND: EGD can be performed transnasally in adults by using small-diameter endoscopes. A large prospective study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and tolerance of diagnostic transnasal EGD in daily practice. METHODS: Unsedated transnasal EGD was attempted in 1100 consecutive patients, in 3 different institutions, by using a 5.9-mm or a 5.3-mm diameter endoscope. The operator determined whether the procedure was successful or unsuccessful, the reason for failures, and any side effects. The influence of gender, age, endoscope diameter, and type of topical anesthesia on the success or failure of the procedure was evaluated. Patients who previously had undergone peroral EGD were queried as to which procedure they preferred. RESULTS: Transnasal EGD was feasible in 93.9% of the patients. The causes of failure were as follows: unsuccessful transnasal insertion (62.7%), patient refusal (19.4%), and nasal pain (17.9%). Female gender, young age (< or =35 years), and larger-endoscope diameter were significant predictive factors for procedure failure. Side effects included the following: epistaxis (2.3%), nasal pain (1.6%), and vaso-vagal reaction (0.3%). A majority (91%) of the patients who previously had undergone unsedated peroral EGD with a standard 9.8-mm diameter endoscope preferred transnasal EGD with a small-diameter endoscope. CONCLUSIONS: Transnasal EGD is feasible in daily endoscopic practice and is preferred by patients. Side effects are rare.     

CARDIOVASCULAR TOLERANCE IN UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY USING AN ULTRATHIN SCOPE: PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED COMPARISON BETWEEN TRANSNASAL AND TRANSORAL PROCEDURES

Background: Transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been suggested to be better tolerated by the cardiovascular system with a lower elevation of systolic blood pressure (BP) than oral EGD. However, limited information is available on the precise comparison of cardiovascular responses between the two endoscopic procedures using the same ultrathin scope. Methods: A prospective patient‐centered randomized study was performed to examine BP, pulse rate (P) and peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO₂) during nasal and oral EGD using the same ultrathin endoscope. The acceptability of EGD was also assessed using a visual analog scale. A total of 1147 patients were divided into four groups: patients who preferred oral or nasal EGD underwent endoscopy according to their preference (preferred group) and patients without preference were randomly assigned to oral and nasal EGD (randomized group). Results: The study design excluded a bias of the patient's preference. The randomized group involved 149 patients among whom 74 and 75 cases were assigned to the transnasal and oral EGD groups, respectively. The results in the randomized group confirmed a significantly lower elevation of BP in patients undergoing transnasal EGD than those undergoing oral EGD, while the increase in P was slightly smaller in patients undergoing the nasal procedure. Changes in SpO₂ were minimal in either procedure. Analyses of patient acceptability showed a favorable evaluation of nasal EGD. Conclusions: The present study confirmed less cardiovascular stress using nasal EGD than oral endoscopy when compared using the same ultrathin scope.     

A randomized trial of topical anesthesia comparing lidocaine versus lidocaine plus xylometazoline for unsedated transnasal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND:

The optimal topical anesthesia regimen for unsedated transnasal endoscopy is unknown. The addition of a nasal decongestant, such as xylometazoline (X), to a topical anesthestic may improve patient comfort.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the effectiveness of lidocaine (L) versus L plus X (LX) for anesthesia in unsedated transnasal endoscopy.

METHODS:

Consecutive participants of the Aklavik Helicobacter pylori project were prospectively randomly assigned to receive LX or L for unsedated transnasal 4.9 mm ultrathin endoscopy. The primary outcome was overall procedure discomfort on a validated 10-point visual analogue scale (1 = no discomfort, 10 = severe discomfort). Secondary outcomes included pain, endoscope insertion difficulty, gagging, adverse events and encounter times. Results were presented as mean ± SD, difference in mean, 95% CI.

RESULTS:

A total of 181 patients were randomly assigned to receive LX (n=94) and L (n=87). Baseline characteristics between the two groups were similar (mean age 40 years, 59% women). Overall, patient procedural discomfort with LX and L were 4.2±2.4 versus 3.9±2.1, respectively (0.29; 95% CI −0.39 to 0.96). Transnasal insertion difficulty was significantly lower with LX than with L (2.4±2.1 versus 3.2±2.8, respectively [−0.80; 95% CI −1.54 to −0.06]). Compared with L, the use of LX was associated with significantly less time needed to apply anesthesia (2.4±1.8 min versus 3.5±2.2 min, respectively [−1.10; 95% CI −1.71 min to −0.50 min]) and less time for insertion (3.2±1.8 min versus 3.9±2.2 min, respectively [−0.70 min; 95% CI −1.30 min to −0.10 min]). Epistaxis was rare but occurred less frequently with LX (1.1%) than with L (4.6%) (P=0.19).

CONCLUSIONS:

LX did not improve patient comfort for transnasal endoscopy compared with L alone. However, LX was associated with less difficulty with endoscope transnasal insertion and reduced insertion time. Further studies on the optimal regimen and dosing of anesthesia are required.     

CARDIOVASCULAR TOLERANCE IN UNSEDATED UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY: PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED COMPARISON BETWEEN TRANSNASAL AND CONVENTIONAL ORAL PROCEDURES

Background: The utility of transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) using ultrathin endoscopy has previously been described by analyzing subjective information and comparing it to conventional oral EGD. Limited information is available regarding the advantageous use of nasal EGD when assessed by reliable objective data. Methods: A total of 927 patients undergoing unsedated EGD between June 2004 and May 2005 were enrolled. We used a partially randomized patient‐centered study design in order to exclude a bias of the patient’s preference. Patients were divided into four groups. Patients who preferred oral or nasal EGD underwent endoscopy according to their preference (preferred group). Patients without preference were randomly assigned to oral and nasal EGD (randomized group). Pulse, blood pressure (BP) and peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO₂) were monitored during the procedure. Acceptability of EGD was also assessed by an acceptance score and the rate of willingness to repeat the same procedure. Results: Oral and nasal EGD were performed in 325 and 387 patients, respectively, in the preferred group, and 81 and 77 cases, respectively, in the randomized group. Nasal EGD was incomplete in 57 patients. Increases in BP were significantly lower in nasal EGD than in oral endoscopy in both the randomized and preferred groups, whereas no significant difference was found in the increment of pulse between the groups. Changes in SpO₂ were minimal in either procedure. Analyses of patient acceptability showed favorable evaluation of nasal EGD in both randomized and preferred groups. Conclusions: Nasal EGD appears to be less stressful to the cardiovascular system. Patient’s acceptability also supports its usefulness unless difficulties in transnasal insertion are encountered.     

Unsedated ultrathin EGD is well accepted when compared with conventional sedated EGD: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the United States, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is usually performed using intravenous sedation. Sedation increases the rate of both complications and costs of endoscopy. Unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) using conventional 8-11-mm endoscopes is an alternative to sedated endoscopy but is generally perceived as unacceptable to many American patients. Unsedated EGD using ultrathin 5-6-mm endoscopes is better tolerated. A randomized trial comparing unsedated ultrathin EGD (UT-EGD) with sedated conventional EGD (C-EGD) in a diverse American population is needed. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 80 patients scheduled to undergo elective outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated UT-EGD or sedated C-EGD. The study was carried out at San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Liver and Digestive Health Medical Clinic, San Jose. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of patients randomized to unsedated UT-EGD and sedated C-EGD were similar. Moreover, there were no significant differences in overall patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat endoscopy in the same manner among the 2 study groups. There was, however, a significant difference in median total procedure time between the 2 study groups of 1.5 hours (P < 0.0001). The mean (+/- SD) total procedure cost was 512.4 US dollars (+/- 100.8 US dollars) for sedated C-EGD and 328.6 US dollars (+/- 70.3 US dollars) for unsedated UT-EGD (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing unsedated UT-EGD are as satisfied as patients undergoing sedated C-EGD and are just as willing to repeat an unsedated UT-EGD. Unsedated UT-EGD was also faster, less costly, and may allow greater accessibility to this procedure.     

Self-training in unsedated transnasal EGD by endoscopists competent in standard peroral EGD: prospective assessment of the learning curve

BACKGROUND: Training programs in unsedated transnasal (UT) EGD are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the learning curve for unsupervised UT-EGD. SETTING: Endoscopy service, without experience in UT-EGD. SUBJECTS: Consecutive patients referred for diagnostic EGD. INTERVENTION: UT-EGD was attempted in 140 study patients by 2 endoscopists who trained by themselves in UT-EGD (skilled endoscopist [n = 70]; a trainee having recently achieved competency in conventional EGD [n = 70]) and in 10 controls (endoscopist skilled in UT-EGD) by using a 4.9-mm-diameter videoendoscope. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical success, sedation administered, patient tolerance acceptance, procedure duration for each decade of 10 consecutive patients investigated by the same endoscopist; intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Both self-trained endoscopists fulfilled predefined criteria of competency in UT-EGD since the first attempts. They completed examinations of adequate quality with exclusive transnasal scope insertion (n = 139 [99.3%]), no sedation (n = 138 [98.6%]), and patient accepting repeat procedure (n = 135 [96.4%]) in proportions not significantly different from controls for all decades. Compared with a median procedure duration of 5.5 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 5.0-8.5 minutes) in controls, procedures were significantly longer for all trainee's decades (eg, first decade 20.0 minutes [IQR 15.0-29.0 minutes], P < .001) but none for the skilled endoscopist. Overall discomfort, pain, gagging, and belching were not significantly different for study patients versus controls. Fifty-six of 69 study patients (81%) with a previous history of conventional EGD preferred UT-EGD. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability to other small-caliber endoscopes. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists competent in conventional EGD may obtain excellent results with UT-EGD (except for procedure duration) beginning with their first attempts, even without supervision or structured training.     

Prospective evaluation of a 3.1-mm battery-powered esophagoscope in screening for esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

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.     

鼻胃镜的临床应用价值及评估

目的探讨超细电子经鼻胃镜(简称鼻胃镜)的临床诊断价值及其可行性。方法按照随机抽样的原则,从来我院消化内镜中心行胃镜检查的患者中随机抽取160例,组成超细胃镜经鼻插入组(A组,80例)和普通胃镜经口插入组(B组,80例)。用心电监护仪动态监测其胃镜检查前及检查过程中的收缩压、舒张压、心率及血氧饱和度。结果两组患者的血氧饱和度在胃镜检查过程中均略有降低,但差异无统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者的收缩压、舒张压有变化和心率都加快,但B组的加快更明显(P0.05)。结论鼻胃镜经鼻腔插入不接触舌根,其耐受性更好,安全性更高,有更广泛的临床应用前景。     

笑气镇静下经鼻胃镜用于静脉麻醉高风险人群的随机对照研究

目的探讨笑气镇静下经鼻胃镜检查用于丙泊酚静脉麻醉高风险人群的安全性和有效性。方法应用随机数字表将157例患者分为笑气组80例和纯氧组77例,分别进行笑气镇静下经鼻胃镜检查和纯氧吸入下经鼻胃镜检查,检测仪监测2组患者心率、脉搏血氧饱和度、血压、心电图变化情况,记录并发症发生情况,术后填写患者和内镜医生有效性调查问卷,调查问卷内容包括内镜医生对操作过程的评价,分为平稳、一般、不平稳;患者感到操作过程的不适,分为轻微、中等、严重;患者对检查过程的耐受性,分为好、中等、差;患者是否愿意再次进行同样的操作,分为是、否,并在视觉模拟评分（VAS评分）量表上标记医生和患者对检查过程的满意程度。对所得数据进行统计分析,比较2组间的差异。结果157例患者中有6例未能完成经鼻胃镜检查而剔除出研究（5例鼻腔通过困难和1例有少量鼻出血,其中笑气组2例,纯氧组4例）,最终151例完成了经鼻胃镜检查,并于术后完成相关调查问卷。笑气组男37例、女41例,年龄16～88岁,平均67．7岁,ASA1级7例,2级61例,3级11例;纯氧组男36例、女37例,年龄17—86岁,平均67．9岁,ASA1级6例,2级57例,3级9例。2组性别构成、平均年龄、ASA分级状况相似（P〉0．05）,具有可比性。笑气组检查时间124～316S,平均200．1s;纯氧组检查时间120～322s,平均200．5s。2组检查时间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。2组患者检查过程中脉搏血氧饱和度、血压、心电图变化以及并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,笑气组医生评价操作过程平稳的比例、患者感到操作过程轻微不适的比例、患者检查过程耐受性好的比例均明显高于纯氧组（P〈0．05）,医生评价操作过程不平稳的比例、患者感到操作过程严重不适的比例、患者检查过程耐受性差的比例明显低于纯氧组（P〈0．05）。笑气组医生满意度VAS评分84分,明显高于纯氧组的70分（t=14．67,P〈0．05）;患者满意度VAS评分82分明显高于纯氧组的71分（t=11．56,P〈0．05）;笑气组89．7％（70／78）的患者愿意再次接受相同检查明显高于纯氧组的69．9％（51／73）（P〈0．05）。结论笑气镇静下经鼻胃镜检查对于丙泊酚静脉麻醉高风险人群是安全和有效的。     

PROSPECTIVE COMPARISON BETWEEN SEDATED HIGH‐DEFINITION ORAL AND UNSEDATED ULTRATHIN TRANSNASAL ESOPHAGOGASTRODUODENOSCOPY IN THE SAME SUBJECTS: PILOT STUDY

Background: Recently, quality as well as acceptability has been a concern regarding endoscopy. The aim of the present study was to compare the acceptability and quality of sedated high‐definition esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sHD‐EGD) using a newly developed high‐definition videoscope with those of unsedated ultrathin esophagogastroduodenoscopy (uUT‐EGD) using a 5.2 mm videoscope. Methods: Twenty‐two volunteers underwent both peroral sHD‐EGD and transnasal uUT‐EGD on the same day. Sedation consisted of 40 mg of propofol i.v. Both endoscopist and subject satisfaction levels were assessed using a 10 cm visual analogue scale. Results: All 22 subjects completed the sHD‐EGD and 21 subjects completed the uUT‐EGD. The endoscopist and subject satisfaction levels of sHD‐EGD were significantly better than those of uUT‐EGD (overall endoscopist satisfaction: 9 vs 4, P < 0.0001; overall subject satisfaction: 9 vs 3, P < 0.0001). The optical quality of the endoscopic images of sHD‐EGD was significantly higher than that of uUT‐EGD except in the duodenal bulb (overall quality: 8 vs 7, P < 0.0001). The interobserver agreement for EGD findings in sHD‐EGD was better than with uUT‐EGD, although the EGD findings in both sHD‐EGD and uUT‐EGD were similar. After undergoing both procedures, 91% were willing to have sHD‐EGD again compared to 9% with uUT‐EGD. Conclusions: The endoscopist and subject satisfaction levels and image quality of sHD‐EGD were better than those of uUT‐EGD. The routine use of high‐definition videoscopes would be expected to provide better acceptability than that obtained with unsedated endoscopy.     

Accuracy of a narrow-diameter battery-powered endoscope in sedated and unsedated patients

BACKGROUND: Esophagoscopy with a portable battery-powered endoscope could provide a safe, inexpensive, and minimally invasive way to screen for Barrett's esophagus or esophageal varices. The use of such an instrument in an unsedated fashion has not been previously evaluated. METHODS: Patients referred for an EGD were recruited to undergo an additional examination with the battery-powered endoscope before EGD. In phase 1, (n = 42) patients received conscious sedation before the battery-powered endoscopic examination. In phase 2, (n = 56) patients were not sedated and were given the option of a peroral (n = 43) or transnasal (n = 13) endoscopy. Examiners were blinded to patient history and procedure indications. Esophageal findings, ease of intubation, optical quality, and patient comfort for the battery-powered endoscope and standard EGD were recorded by the endoscopist. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients (60 men, 38 women, mean age 53 years) were recruited. The sensitivity for detecting Barrett's esophagus, esophageal tumors, and esophageal varices was 54.5%, 66.7%, and 80%, respectively. Ease of intubation and patient comfort as perceived by the endoscopist were not significantly different between the battery-powered endoscope and EGD. Optical quality was ranked as less than 4 (on a 5-point scale with 5 = standard EGD and 1 = poor) in 42% of battery-powered endoscopic examinations. There were no complications. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of esophageal examination with a 3.1-mm endoscope is substantially inferior to standard EGD. Thus, the battery-powered endoscope would not be useful for screening patients for Barrett's esophagus or varices unless improvements in optical quality and visualization are made.     

Ultrathin endoscope flexibility can predict discomfort associated with unsedated transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the effects of choice of insertion route and ultrathin endoscope types.METHODS: This prospective study (January-June 2012) included 882 consecutive patients who underwent annual health checkups. Transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed in 503 patients and transoral EGD in 235 patients using six types of ultrathin endoscopes. Patients were given a choice of insertion route, either transoral or transnasal, prior to EGD examination. For transoral insertion, the endoscope was equipped with a thin-type mouthpiece and tongue depressor. Conscious sedation was not used for any patient. EGD-associated discomfort was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS; no discomfort 0- maximum discomfort 10).RESULTS: Rates of preference for transnasal insertion were significantly higher in male (male/female 299/204 vs 118/117) and younger patients (56.8 ± 11.2 years vs 61.3 ± 13.0 years), although no significant difference was found in VAS scores between transoral and transnasal insertion (3.9 ± 2.3 vs 4.1 ± 2.5). Multivariate analysis revealed that gender, age, operator, and endoscope were independent significant predictors of VAS for transnasal insertion, although gender, age, and endoscope were those for transoral insertion. Further analysis revealed only the endoscopic flexibility index (EFI) as an independent significant predictor of VAS for transnasal insertion. Both EFI and tip diameter were independent significant predictors of VAS for transoral insertion.CONCLUSION: Flexibility of ultrathin endoscopes can be a predictor of EGD-associated discomfort, especially in transnasal insertion.     

Unsedated ultrathin upper endoscopy is better than conventional endoscopy in routine outpatient gastroenterology practice： A randomized trial

AIM: to compare the feasibility and patients' tolerance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) using a thin endoscope with those of conventional oral EGD and to determine the optimal route of introduction of small-caliber endoscopes. METHODS: One hundred and sixty outpatients referred for diagnostic EGD were randomly allocated to 3 groups: conventional (C)-EGD (9.8 mm in diameter), transnasal (TN)-EGD and transoral (TO)-EGD (5.9 mm in diameter). Pre-EGD anxiety was measured using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). After EGD, patients and endoscopists completed a questionnaire on the pain, nausea, choking, overall discomfort, and quality of the examination either using VAS or answering some questions. The duration of EGD was timed. Blood oxygen saturation (SaO2) and heart rate (HR) were monitored during EGD. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients refused to participate in the study. The 3 groups were well-matched for age, gender, experience with EGD, and anxiety. EGD was completed in 91.1% (41/45), 97.5% (40/41), and 96.2% (51/53) of cases in TN-EGD, TO-EGD, and C-EGD groups, respectively. TN-EGD lasted longer (3.11 ± 1.60 min) than TO-EGD (2.25 ± 1.45 min) and C-EGD (2.49 ± 1.64 min) (P < 0.05). The overall tolerance was higher (P < 0.05) and the overall discomfort was lower (P < 0.05) in TN-EGD group than in C-EGD group. EGD was tolerated "better than expected" in 73.2% of patients in TN-EGD group and 55% and 39.2% of patients in TO-EGD and C-EGD groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Endoscopy was tolerated "worst than expected" in 4.9% of patients in TN-EGD group and 17.5% and 23.5% of patients in TO-EGD and C-EGD groups, respectively (P < 0.05). TN-EGDcaused mild epistaxis in one case. The ability to insufflate air, wash the lens, and suction of the thin endoscope were lower than those of conventional instrument (P < 0.001). All biopsies performed were adequate for histological assessment. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic TN-EGD is better tolerated than C-EGD. Narrow-diameter endoscope has a level of diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of conventional gastroscope, even though some technical characteristics of these instruments should be improved. Transnasal EGD with narrow-diameter endoscope should be proposed to all patients undergoing diagnostic EGD.