Sedation with intranasal midazolam in adults undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

The use of intranasal (IN) midazolam in adults for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy has been evaluated in a controlled clinical study. Eighty-one patients with a mean age of 37.02 +/- 12.50 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for various reasons were included in the study. Three groups were formed according to the sedation regimen. In the first group (n = 30), patients received IN midazolam. In the second group (n = 28) intravenous (IV) midazolam was given for sedation, and the third group of patients (n = 23) received placebo before the procedures. Patients were monitored (using a pulse oximeter with an interval of 5 minutes until the 45th minute after the procedure) for arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, systolic and diastolic arterial blood pressure, and respiratory rate. Efficacy of sedation, amnesia, side effects, and patients' preferences were evaluated. Superior results regarding the efficacy of sedation has been documented with the use of IV midazolam (p < 0.001), and this was the preferred route for drug application according to the patients' answers (p < 0.01). However, regarding amnesia, IN midazolam was found to be almost equally effective as IV midazolam (p < 0.05); moreover, IN route of drug application caused significantly fewer side effects than did the IV form (p < 0.001 ). Intranasal application of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy appeared to be an interesting alternative to the IV route, the usage of which might be limited because of its potentially serious side effects. In contrast to the IV application of midazolam, the IN route may not even necessitate the monitoring of the patient during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.     

Newly developing hiatus hernia: a survey in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND: Data on the incidence of hiatus hernia are lacking. A cross-sectional study was performed in a large population of consecutive patients undergoing endoscopy in order to assess the yearly incidence of hiatus hernia in this population. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in whom no macroscopic abnormalities were seen and who, in addition, underwent a second endoscopy were included in the study. The presence of newly developed hiatus hernia was noted, as well as the time elapsed between both endoscopies. RESULTS: Over a period of 8 years, 12 122 endoscopies were performed in 9580 patients. Ninety patients developed a hiatus hernia; this was not the case in a control group of 353 patients. Patients who developed a hiatus hernia were significantly older than those who did not (P < 0.001). The number of women who developed hiatus hernia was higher than the number of men who developed hiatus hernia (P < 0.0001). The total time between both endoscopies in 443 patients was 897 patient years. Ninety patients (20.3%) developed a hiatus hernia. If these data are extrapolated to a yearly occurrence, then 35 of 176 patients will develop a hiatus hernia. It takes an average of 1.9 years for a hiatus hernia to develop. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, it was calculated that 19.9% of the studied population would develop a hiatus hernia per year. Patients who developed a hiatus hernia were significantly older than patients who did not. The present study also shows that a hiatus hernia actually develops later in life.     

Rising incidence of reflux oesophagitis in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND: In the literature a lot of epidemiological data is present but little is known on the yearly incidence of oesophagitis and Barrett's oesophagus. For this reason a cross-sectional study was done to explore the yearly incidence of these conditions in patients sent for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with reflux oesophagitis, Barrett's oesophagus or hiatus hernia in a 10-year period were included. RESULTS: In the period of 10 years 11,691 consecutive patients underwent endoscopic examination. Oesophagitis was diagnosed in 1,633 patients, Barrett's oesophagus in 275, and hiatus hernia without oesophagitis in 1,407 patients. The number of patients with oesophagitis almost doubled, while the number of patients with hiatus hernia or Barrett's oesophagus remained constant each year in this time period. The number of men diagnosed with oesophagitis or Barrett's oesophagus was significantly higher than the number of women. Hiatus hernia occurred significantly more often in women, and was present in 79-88% of patients with active reflux oesophagitis. CONCLUSION: This study clearly shows that the incidence of reflux oesophagitis shows a marked increase. The incidence doubled in a period of ten consecutive years. This data should be kept in mind in planning future health-care resources. It can be expected that the use of acid suppressive therapy will be rising in the years to come.     

Esophageal polyps in pediatric patients undergoing routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a multicenter study

Esophageal polyps are uncommon findings in pediatric patients, and reports have been limited to case reports. Esophageal polyps have been previously ascribed to esophagitis secondary to gastroesophageal reflux, medications, infections and recurrent vomiting. They have been associated with underlying conditions such as hiatal hernia, Barrett's esophagus, eosinophilic esophagitis and Crohn's disease. Presenting complaints of children with esophageal polyps have included vomiting, dysphagia, hematemesis and abdominal pain. The aim of this paper is to characterize the incidence, clinical presentation and progression, histologic subtypes and associated mucosal abnormalities in children with esophageal polyps. A retrospective multicenter study was performed at four institutions identifying diagnosis of esophageal polyps in pediatric patients (<21 years). Information was obtained from patient charts, endoscopy reports and histopathology reports. Specimens and slides were examined by experienced pediatric pathologists for all included cases. Esophageal polyps were identified in 13 patients (9 M) from 9438 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (0.14%). Mean age of subjects was 9.2 years. Vomiting was the most common indication for endoscopy. Polyp location was at the gastroesophageal junction in 7 of the 13 cases. Most polyps were inflammatory (n = 7). Esophagitis was noted in 69% of those with esophageal polyps. Repeat endoscopies in six patients at a mean interval of 8 months noted persistence of polyps in all six patients. This paper is the first to characterize esophageal polyps in pediatrics. These polyps are rare in children and often are associated with esophagitis. Presenting complaints seem to vary by age. Polyps did not consistently change with either time or acid suppression. The optimal management strategy has yet to be defined and likely depends on the underlying pathophysiologic process.     

Lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia in upper GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND: Conscious sedation is usually achieved during EGD by a combination of intravenous benzodiazepines and opiates; however, these have potential serious adverse effects. The addition of topical oropharyngeal anesthetics such as lidocaine may be useful. Recent data suggest that the administration of topical lidocaine by means of a lollipop is effective for endotracheal intubation and bronchoscopy. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia for EGD and to determine whether its use reduces the need for intravenous sedatives and analgesics. DESIGN: Single-blinded, randomized, prospective study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 50 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to either lidocaine lollipop or lidocaine spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were administered during the procedure as needed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The success and safety of local anesthesia by lidocaine lollipop in addition to the need for intravenous sedation. RESULTS: Patients were equally randomized between the lollipop and the spray groups. The lollipop group had less gag reflex, accommodated scope introduction more, and tolerated the procedure better. Thirty-two percent of patients receiving the lollipop required sedation compared with 96% of patients in the spray group (P < .001). The majority in the lollipop group were satisfied with their mode of anesthesia compared with the spray group. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine lollipop is a promising form of local oropharyngeal anesthesia for EGD. Its use resulted in sparing the use of intravenous sedation. It is well tolerated and safe and may be particularly important in the elderly, patients with comorbidities, and office-based endoscopy.     

Premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Premedication is not essential to endoscopy but patient tolerance is clearly improved and, thus, ease of examination. Although comparable results can be achieved through nonpharmacologic means, the time and effort involved precludes their widespread use. Despite near universal utilization of premedication in endoscopy, the associated risk is difficult to determine from the available literature. The reported data reveal nominal risk yet must be viewed as minimums. The ideal drug with predictable clinical effects, minimal postprocedure impairment, little respiratory compromise, and proven antagonist is not yet available. Although midazolam seems to represent an advance, recent emphasis on respiratory depression is particularly troublesome. Studies evaluating various agents have suffered from lack of quantitation of such parameters as patient tolerance, ease of examination, and postprocedure impairment. Development of proven standards for these parameters would have to occur before a definitive double-blind randomized trial could be undertaken. Suggested means of assessing these parameters are listed in Table I. Improvement in major morbidity would be difficult in light of its low incidence. As the search for the ideal drug continues, endoscopists must continue to use drugs whose full effects are incompletely understood. The ability to increase patient comfort must be balanced with the small, but ever present, risk of morbidity and mortality.     

Arrhythmias during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Electrocardiographic monitoring of 52 consecutive patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed that arrhythmias during the procedures were common (38.5%) and tended to occur more frequently in the elderly (75%), in persons with heart disease (54.5%), and in persons with chronic lung disease (89%). The incidence of ventricular premature contractions in patient with no evidence of heart or lung disease was 19%. In one patient with advanced chronic lung disease, the procedure had to be terminated because of development of high-degree atrioventricular block. A high incidence of arrhythmias during endoscopy has not been previously reported in patients with chronic lung disease.     

Cardiovascular considerations in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are common procedures for diagnosis and treatment. Patients with various cardiovascular conditions can undergo these procedures, including those patients with acute myocardial infarction, but appropriate precautions need to be maintained, especially with procedure-induced autonomic nervous system pertubations that can affect heart rate and blood pressure. In this article, treatment recommendations are included for those patients undergoing endoscopy who are receiving anticoagulation and for those who are at risk for bacterial endocarditis.     

Magnifying endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal tract]

For the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) lesions, magnification method is usually used in conjunction with chromoscopy, enabling the endoscopist to view subtle mucosal patterns in exquisite detail. Recently published datas have shown that magnifying endoscopy might be a valuable adjunct for the diagnosis, detection, and characterization of inflammatory and neoplastic lesions of the upper GI tract. It is also proven to be an useful surveillance protocol in identifying dysplastic epithelium or early cancer within a segment of Barrett's esophagus. Possible indications for magnifying endoscopy in upper GI tract include screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus, defining the extent of esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma, detecting synchronous/metachronous gastric and esophageal cancers, diagnosing Helicobacter pylori infection, and recognizing minimal mucosal changes in gastroesophageal reflux disease. By grading the quality of evidence for the currently published trials, it is clear that the majority are case series, case reports, and/or observational studies without randomization, control, or blinding. Moreover, other evidence-based criteria such as independent, blind comparisons of magnifying endoscopy with a standard method which evaluates this technology in an appropriate spectrum of patients to whom the test may be applicable, and standardizing methodology would be crucial before magnifying endoscopy becomes a standard procedure in clinical practice. In the future, a uniform classification system for staining and magnifying patterns should be devised and observer agreement should be tested. Futher studies then could be performed based upon consistent, validated, and standardized terminologies and criteria.     

Observer variability in upper gastrointestinal fiber endoscopy

The reliability of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was evaluated in 71 patients. The study was designed as a comparison between the separate protocols written by two endoscopists at each EGD. The results showed an over-all disagreement of 32% between observers. When the results were correlated with endoscopical experience, a significantly higher proportion of false-negative results was found among endoscopists with experience of less than 500 EGDs compared with a more experienced group of investigators. No difference was found between residents in training (less than or equal to 200 EGDs) and those with intermediate experience (200-500 EGDs). The implications with regard to repeated training programs and authorization of endoscopists are discussed.     

Bacteremia after upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

During 24 months, 200 upper gastrointestinal endoscopies were performed on 193 patients. Blood cultures were obtained before and five and 30 minutes after the procedure using thiol (50 ml) and trypticase soy broth (100 ml) media. The mean endoscopic time was 34 minutes. Sixteen patients developed bacteremia (8%). Twelve groups of microorganisms were detected in positive blood cultures: Streptococcus (5 species), Lactobacillus sp, Veillonella alcalescens, Staphylococcus aureus, Staph epidermidis, Propioni-bacterium acnes, Corynebacterium acnes, and Bacillus subtilis. Seven patients had positive blood cultures at five and 30 minutes, eight at five minutes, and one at 30 minutes only. There was no clear correlation of bacteremia with the age or previous history of the patient, biopsy, active bleeding, endoscopic time, or findings. A follow-up study of all patients for six months to two years indicated no complications related to endoscopy and/or bacteremia.