Unsedated transnasal endoscopy: a new technique for accurately detecting and grading esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic screening of cirrhotics for large esophageal varices (EV) is advocated before initiation of prophylactic therapy for variceal bleeding. Conscious sedation for conventional endoscopy is problematic in cirrhotic patients because of risk of prolonged encephalopathy. Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (T-EGD) is a new technique, which allows for unsedated examination because it is well tolerated. The aims of this study were to determine whether T-EGD is feasible for screening of cirrhotic patients for presence of EV and to compare the diagnostic yield of T-EGD with conventional endoscopy for detecting and grading of EV. METHODS: Fifteen cirrhotics with no history of variceal bleeding, known EV, severe thrombocytopenia, or recurrent epistaxis were evaluated by unsedated T-EGD using a 5.3-mm outer diameter endoscope. Immediately afterward, a different endoscopist, blinded to T-EGD findings, performed sedated conventional endoscopy in standard fashion. The presence and size of EV, gastric varices, and other findings were recorded. Patient tolerance was also evaluated. RESULTS: Both modalities detected EV in the same 10 and gastric varices in the same two patients and completely agreed on size of EV. No stigmata of recent variceal bleeding were noted. Average time for unsedated T-EGD was 5 min 6 s. All patients found both procedures acceptable overall, with no significant difference in choking, discomfort, and sore throat. One patient developed self-limited epistaxis after T-EGD. CONCLUSIONS: 1) EV are accurately detected and graded by T-EGD in cirrhotic patients. 2) T-EGD is a safe and less costly screening alternative for EV in cirrhotic patients.     

Esophageal capsule endoscopy for screening and surveillance of esophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension

Bleeding from esophageal varices (EV) is a serious consequence of portal hypertension. Current guidelines recommend screening patients with cirrhosis with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to detect varices. However, the unpleasantness and need for sedation of EGD may limit adherence to screening programs. Pilot studies have shown good performance of esophageal capsule endoscopy in detecting varices. This multicenter trial was designed to assess the diagnostic performance of capsule endoscopy in comparison with EGD. Patients undergoing EGD for screening or surveillance of EV underwent a capsule study previously. The study was designed as an equivalence study, assuming that a difference of 相似文献   

A prospective, blinded study of diagnostic esophagoscopy with a superthin, stand-alone, battery-powered esophagoscope

OBJECTIVES: A more widely available, well-tolerated, and cost-effective technique is needed to screen a broad population at risk for esophageal cancer. An ideal solution might be to perform unsedated esophagoscopy with an entirely self-contained, small-caliber endoscope. In a prospective, blinded study in three phases, we compared the feasibility, patient tolerance, and diagnostic accuracy of esophagoscopy performed with a prototype, superthin, battery-powered esophagoscope (BPE) with standard video esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SVE). METHODS: In phase I, 10 healthy volunteers underwent both peroral and transnasal esophagoscopy with BPE to evaluate the technical feasibility of the examination. For phases II and III, patients were recruited to have BPE before SVE. In phase II, both procedures were performed with conscious sedation. In phase III, the BPE was performed with only topical anesthesia. Two endoscopists assessed the technical performance of the endoscope and patient tolerance and recorded the esophageal findings independently. RESULTS: In phase I, all endoscopists reported adequate visualization of the esophagus in the 10 volunteers. A total of 181 patients were evaluated in phases II and III (89 in phase II, 92 in phase III). The sensitivity for detecting columnar lined esophagus was 94% in phase II and 95% in phase III. The sensitivity for all esophageal findings was 87% and 86% in phases II and III, respectively. The technical performance of the endoscope was significantly worse for BPE compared with the SVE. The patient tolerance as evaluated by the endoscopist was similar for both procedures. Ninety-five percent of the patients undergoing unsedated BPE were willing to have the procedure repeated under similar circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Unsedated esophagoscopy with a 3.1-mm, battery-powered, stand-alone esophagoscope is feasible, well tolerated, and accurate in detecting esophageal pathologies. It might be an efficient and cost-effective screening tool for the detection of columnar lined esophagus.     

Techniques in unsedated endoscopy

The evolution of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the United States has led to the near-universal practice of performing all endoscopic procedures under conscious sedation. Performing endoscopy without sedation has intuitive benefits and may play a larger role in the future of endoscopic practice. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or esophagoscopy using small caliber endoscopes may be the most promising application of unsedated endoscopy. Most upper endoscopies are done for diagnostic purposes and such unsedated procedures may be completed in less than ten minutes. Unsedated EGD has been shown to be tolerable, feasible, and safe. Despite such reports, unsedated endoscopy has not gained widespread use in the United States. The goals of this chapter are to review the technical aspects of unsedated upper endoscopy in an attempt to promote its more widespread practice.     

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.     

Prospective evaluation of 4-mm diameter endoscopes for esophagoscopy in sedated and unsedated patients

BACKGROUND: Unsedated esophagoscopy with small-diameter endoscopes is generally well tolerated but of limited sensitivity for the diagnosis of esophageal mucosal disease. This study evaluated the sensitivity of esophagoscopy performed with new 4-mm diameter prototype battery-powered and video endoscopes. Patient tolerance for an unsedated examination with the 4-mm endoscopes was assessed and the performance characteristics of the battery-powered and video 4-mm endoscopes were compared. METHODS: Patients referred for EGD were recruited to undergo an additional examination with a 4-mm endoscope. A prototype 60-cm long, 4-mm diameter battery-powered fiberoptic esophagoscope was used in the first 24 patients and a prototype 60-cm long, 4-mm diameter video esophagoscope in the next 27 patients. Examiners who were unaware of patient history and procedure indications recorded esophageal findings, ease of intubation, optical quality (5-point visual scale), and time for examination of the esophagus and then recorded esophageal findings after the standard EGD. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for identification of Barrett's esophagus was 100%; overall sensitivity, accuracy, and specificity for detecting esophageal lesions were, respectively, 91%, 98%, and 99%. Patient tolerance (assessed by symptom scores for choking, pain, and discomfort) and acceptability of unsedated esophagoscopy with the 4-mm diameter instruments were significantly better than in a historical group of patients examined with a 3-mm diameter endoscope. The optical quality of video endoscope was rated as superior to that of battery-powered endoscope, and esophageal examination was performed significantly quicker with the video versus the battery-powered endoscope (68 vs. 137 seconds; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Unsedated esophagoscopy with 4-mm diameter endoscopes may be an alternative to EGD for screening for Barrett's esophagus. Given the current state of endoscopic technology, a minimum diameter of 4 mm is required for satisfactory esophageal imaging.     

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.     

Study comparing oesophageal capsule endoscopy versus EGD in the detection of varices

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening and surveillance of cirrhotic patients for oesophageal varices is advocated before initiation of prophylactic therapy for prevention of the first variceal haemorrhage. AIMS: To compare the diagnostic yield of oesophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) with Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for detecting and grading oesophageal varices and to determine patient tolerance for each procedure. PATIENTS: Twenty consecutive cirrhotic patients scheduled for EGD were enrolled in the study. METHODS: Patients underwent ECE followed by EGD. Patients completed a visual analogue scale after each procedure, assessing level of anxiety, pain, overall satisfaction, and willingness to repeat each procedure. RESULTS: On EGD, 19/20 patients had oesophageal varices. ECE detected varices in 13/19 (68% sensitivity). ECE identified nine out of ten varices rated grade II or higher on EGD. The post-study analogue scale showed a greater level of anxiety before EGD (avg. 2.75/10) versus ECE (avg. 1.5/10). CONCLUSIONS: ECE may be used in the assessment of EV. It appears to have more discordance with EGD when evaluating smaller varices. The minimal discomfort, lack of sedation, and decreased risk make ECE a possible substitute to EGD in patients unable or unwilling to undergo EGD.     

Ultrathin esophagoscopy in screening for Barrett's esophagus at a Veterans Administration Hospital: easy access does not lead to referrals

OBJECTIVE: Unsedated, ultrathin esophagoscopy has been shown to be tolerable, safe, and accurate. Survey data have suggested that accessibility of unsedated esophagoscopy would increase referrals for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening. Our purpose was to evaluate primary-care physician referrals for BE screening when unsedated esophagoscopy is made available. METHODS: We studied primary-care referrals for unsedated esophagoscopy in a VA internal medicine clinic. Patients over age 45 with chronic heartburn for >5 yr or >3 times weekly and who had no previous EGD were eligible for screening with unsedated esophagoscopy. All primary providers received a 15-min education session on screening. Baseline referral rate was determined retrospectively. Longitudinal data were then collected during three phases of the study: (a) primary provider-initiated referrals, (b) primary provider-initiated referrals with weekly reminders from investigators, and (c) investigator recruitment. RESULTS: Baseline referral rate averaged 0.5 patients per month. Availability of unsedated esophagoscopy and an education session increased the rate of referral to 0.66 patients per month. Weekly reminders to primary physicians further increased the rate to 1.33 referrals per month. Investigator recruitment produced a rate of 2.67 referrals per month. Of the 77 patients offered screening, 25 (32%) declined. Of the 52 patients screened, three (5.8%) were diagnosed with BE. CONCLUSIONS: Accessibility of unsedated esophagoscopy itself does not lead to a large increase in the number of primary care referrals for BE screening. Factors that prevent primary care physicians from referring patients for screening need to be identified and effective interventions to change referral patterns need to be implemented for unsedated screening programs to be successful.     

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.     

The changing landscape of practice patterns regarding unsedated endoscopy and propofol use: a national Web survey

BACKGROUND: Lower reimbursements for endoscopic procedures and increasing demand for screening endoscopy over the past decade have spurred efforts to increase efficiency in the performance of endoscopic procedures. Two dichotomous approaches have emerged: (1) unsedated endoscopy and (2) propofol sedation. The aim was to determine national practice patterns of unsedated endoscopy and propofol sedation, and to assess endoscopists' attitudes toward unsedated screening with an electronic survey. METHODS: A short survey was developed and then was converted to a Web-based format. All national members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) were invited via electronic mail (e-mail) to participate. Survey data were collected electronically. RESULTS: Two e-mails elicited responses to the Web survey from 18% (724) of national ASGE members contacted, within 2 weeks. Of the respondents, 45% do not routinely offer unsedated EGD and colonoscopy, and only 15% of those respondents plan to incorporate unsedated endoscopy into their practice in the next year. Of the 55% who currently perform unsedated endoscopy, 85% do no more than 25 unsedated procedures per year. Lack of patient acceptance was the most common reason cited for not offering unsedated endoscopy. Most endoscopists felt that the availability of unsedated esophagoscopy or colonoscopy would not significantly increase screening for Barrett's esophagus or colonic polyps/colorectal cancer, respectively. Routine use of propofol sedation for EGD, colonoscopy, and ERCP/EUS was reported by 19%, 22%, and 19%, respectively. Community practitioners were more likely to use propofol than those at academic centers (p < 0.0002 for all). Of those not currently using propofol, 43% plan to incorporate it into their practice within the next year. Over 70% of respondents would themselves choose to be sedated for routine endoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic surveys allow for rapid distribution and data collection but suffer from a limited response rate. The survey suggests that unsedated endoscopy has limited acceptance in the United States, and, without a major intervention that affects endoscopists' attitudes, its use is not likely to increase significantly. Unsedated endoscopy will not have a great impact on endoscopic screening. In contrast, propofol sedation has already gained acceptance in the community, and the routine use of propofol in endoscopy units will likely increase in the future.     

Feasibility and safety of string wireless capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis of esophageal varices

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, safety, accuracy, and acceptability of "string-capsule endoscopy" in the evaluation of esophageal varices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Strings were attached to the wireless capsule endoscopy device to allow its controlled movement up and down the esophagus. Time of recording and discomfort associated with the procedure was documented. Patient's preference compared to conventional esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) was recorded. An independent endoscopist blinded to EGD diagnoses assessed the diagnostic accuracy of pictures obtained. RESULTS: Thirty patients with clinical liver cirrhosis (mean age: 54.4 yr; mean MELD score: 12.5, and mean Child-Pugh score: 6.3) were enrolled; 19 for surveillance and 11 for screening purposes. The procedure was safe (no strings were disrupted and no capsule was lost). The mean recording time was 5.8 min (2.9-8.7), the accuracy 96.7%, and discomfort was minimal. The majority (83.3%) of patients preferred string-capsule endoscopy to EGD. CONCLUSIONS: String-capsule endoscopy was feasible, safe, accurate, highly acceptable, and preferred by cirrhotic patients undergoing screening/surveillance of esophageal varices. The technique may prove to be more cost effective than conventional EGD.     

Unsedated upper endoscopy in children

BACKGROUND: EGD is essential to the investigation and treatment of GI disorders in children. Although safe, EGD has the potential for complications, in particular cardiopulmonary abnormalities associated with intravenous sedation. EGD is often performed in adults without sedation. Unsedated EGD is occasionally performed in children but has not been subjected to study. This study assessed the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of unsedated EGD in children. METHODS: Selected, highly motivated children requiring EGD were offered the choice of sedation or no sedation for the procedure. Children recorded scores for pain (face scale) and anxiety (vertical visual analogue scale) before and after EGD. In addition, the times required to prepare the patient, perform the EGD, and recover the patient were recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference in age, gender, or pre-EGD pain scores between children selecting sedation or no sedation. However, children selecting sedation had significantly higher pre-EGD anxiety scores than those who chose no sedation. Successful completion of EGD was similar for sedated (96.3%) and unsedated (95.2%) children. Post-EGD scores for anxiety were significantly decreased in those receiving sedation and unchanged in children who received no sedation. There was no significant change in post-EGD pain score in either group. Nearly 80% of children undergoing unsedated EGD would elect to forego sedation if EGD was needed again. Total procedure time was significantly longer in sedated versus unsedated children, reflecting longer preparation and recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Unsedated EGD can be performed safely and successfully in children with good patient tolerance. There was a significant decrease in total procedure time for children who have unsedated EGD. Unsedated EGD should be considered a viable option for motivated children.     

Unsedated small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) versus conventional EGD: a comparative study

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant portions of the cost and complications of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) are related to sedation. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and accuracy of unsedated small-caliber transoral EGD (sc-EGD). METHODS: A 4-phase study was performed in healthy volunteers and patients. Phases 1 and 2 involved assessment of the technical feasibility of sedated sc-EGD and the tolerability of unsedated sc-EGD, respectively, in volunteers. Subsequently, the technical feasibility, tolerability, and diagnostic accuracy of sedated and unsedated sc-EGD were determined by having each patient undergo sc-EGD (Pentax EG-1840) with (phase 3) and without (phase 4) sedation, followed by sedated conventional EGD (c-EGD) (Olympus GIF-100 or GIF-Q140) by a staff endoscopist blinded to the findings of the sc-EGD. The t test for paired samples was used for statistical analysis. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Sedated and unsedated sc-EGD were technically feasible and tolerable in all volunteers. In patients, compared with sedated c-EGD, sedated and unsedated sc-EGD were 96% and 97% accurate, respectively. The overall acceptability of unsedated sc-EGD was only slightly worse than that of sedated c-EGD (median, 2 vs. 1 on a scale of 1-10). After unsedated sc-EGD, 98% of patients expressed willingness to undergo the procedure again. No complications were observed during any phase of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Unsedated sc-EGD is technically feasible, tolerable, and accurate. It can potentially decrease the costs and complications of sedated conventional EGD.     

Utility of unsedated transnasal endoscopy for pharyngeal observation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy. A prospective study to assess cardiopulmonary function

Abstract

Objectives. Emergence of image-enhanced endoscopy has enabled an early detection of pharyngeal carcinoma. Pharyngeal observation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is sometimes difficult because of excessive reflexes and is a great burden to the patients and impacts on their cardiopulmonary function. In this study, the authors aimed to evaluate the utility of transnasal EGD (TN-EGD) in comparison with sedated and unsedated transoral EGD (TO-EGD) in pharyngeal observation using a continuous monitoring device. Methods. A total of 70 patients receiving diagnostic EGD (unsedated TN-EGD, sedated TO-EGD, and unsedated TO-EGD) were enrolled in this study and were evaluated by the following three criteria: (1) numbers of patients with excessive gag and/or cough reflex, (2) vital signs before and during the pharyngeal observation, and (3) response to the request for vocalization or breath-holding. Results. Unsedated TN-EGD, sedated TO-EGD, and unsedated TO-EGD were performed in 30, 20, and 20 patients, respectively. The rate of gag reflex was significantly lower in TN-EGD than in both types of TO-EGD (0% vs. 30%, chi-square test, p < 0.005). The changes in average values of both arterial oxygen saturation (SpO₂) and pulse rate (PR) in TN-EGD were smaller than those in sedated TO-EGD (?0.23% vs. ?1.23% in SpO₂ and 1.57 vs. 8.11 bpm in PR, p < 0.01, respectively). Unsedated TN-EGD patients could respond to the instructions of utterance and breath-holding during the observation (p < 0.05, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion. Unsedated TN-EGD is safe and feasible for pharyngeal observation during normal EGD examination.     

Prospective randomized trial of transnasal versus peroral endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope in unsedated patients

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the acceptance and tolerance of transnasal and peroral esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) using an ultrathin videoendoscope in unsedated patients. METHODS: A total of 124 patients referred for diagnostic endoscopy were assigned randomly to have an unsedated transnasal EGD (n = 64) or peroral EGD (n = 60) with local anesthesia. An ultrathin videoendoscope with a diameter of 5.9 mm was used in this study. A questionnaire for tolerance was completed by the patient (a validated 0-10 scale where '0' represents no discomfort/well tolerated and '10' represents severe discomfort/poorly tolerated). RESULTS: Of the 64 transnasal EGD patients, 60 patients (94%) had a complete examination. Four transnasal EGD examinations failed for anatomical reasons; all four patients were successfully examined when switched to the peroral EGD. All 60 peroral EGD patients had a complete examination. Between the transnasal and peroral groups, there was a statistically significant difference in scores for discomfort during local anesthesia (1.5 +/- 0.2 vs 2.6 +/- 0.3, P = 0.003), discomfort during insertion (2.3 +/- 0.3 vs 4.3 +/- 0.3, P = 0.001), and overall tolerance during procedure (1.6 +/- 0.2 vs 3.8 +/- 0.2, P = 0.001). In all, 95% of transnasal EGD patients and 75% of peroral EGD patients (P = 0.002) were willing to undergo the same procedure in the future. Four patients in the transnasal EGD group experienced mild epistaxis. CONCLUSION: For unsedated endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope, transnasal EGD is well tolerated and considerably reduces patient discomfort compared with peroral EGD.     

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.     

Comparison of esophageal capsule endoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy for diagnosis of esophageal varices

AIM： To investigate the utility of esophageal capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis and grading of esophageal varices.
METHODS： Cirrhotic patients who were undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy （EGD） for variceal screening or surveillance underwent capsule endoscopy. Two separate blinded investigators read each capsule endoscopy for the following results： variceal grade, need for treatment with variceal banding or prophylaxis with beta-blocker therapy, degree of portal hypertensive gastropathy, and gastric varices.
RESULTS： Fifty patients underwent both capsule and EGD. Forty-eight patients had both procedures on the same day, and 2 patients had capsule endoscopy within 72 h of EGD. The accuracy of capsule endoscopy to decide on the need for prophylaxis was 74%, with sensitivity of 63% and specificity of 82%. Interrater agreement was moderate （kappa = 0.56）. Agreement between EGD and capsule endoscopy on grade of varices was 0.53 （moderate）. Inter-rater reliability was good （kappa = 0.77）. In diagnosis of portal hypertensive gastropathy, accuracy was 57%, with sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 17%. Two patients had gastric varices seen on EGD, one of which was seen on capsule endoscopy. There were no complications from capsule endoscopy.
CONCLUSION： We conclude that capsule endoscopy has a limited role in deciding which patients would benefit from EGD with banding or beta-blocker therapy. More data is needed to assess accuracy for staging esophageal varices, PHG, and the detection of gastric varices.     

Modified mallampati classification as a clinical predictor of peroral esophagogastroduodenoscopy tolerance

Background  

Unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is simpler and safer than sedated EGD; however, approximately 40% of patients cannot tolerate it. Early identification of patients likely to poorly tolerate unsedated EGD is valuable for improving compliance. The modified Mallampati classification (MMC) has been used to evaluate difficult tracheal intubation and laryngoscope insertion. We tried to assess the efficacy of MMC to predict the tolerance of EGD in unsedated patients.     

Original research: One-stop shop for variceal surveillance: integration of unsedated ultrathin endoscopy into the routine clinic visit

BackgroundThe endoscopic appearance of oesophageal varices determines the need for prophylaxis. However, as the point prevalence of varices is low (25%), the majority of surveillance endoscopies are unnecessary and costly. Narrow diameter, ultrathin (UT) endoscopes are more tolerable than conventional upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopes and can be used without sedation. We hypothesised that unsedated UT endoscopy for variceal surveillance could be implemented during the routine outpatient clinic visit allowing accurate diagnosis of varices and the timely provision of prophylaxis.MethodsPatients with cirrhosis awaiting surveillance endoscopy were identified. UT endoscopy was scheduled during routine clinic review at the same time as ultrasound surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma. UGI endoscopy was performed unsedated using the E.G Scan II disposable endoscope. Varices were graded using the modified Paquet classification. Video recordings of procedures were reviewed by blinded assessors and agreement was assessed using the kappa statistic.Results40 patients (80% male) underwent unsedated UT endoscopy. All procedures were successful and tolerated well in 98% of cases. Median procedure time was 2 min (IQR 1–3). Varices were found in 37.5% (17.5% grade 1 and 20% grade 2). Patients with grade 2 varices were prescribed non-selective beta blockers at the clinic appointment. Kappa statistic for the finding of any varices was 0.636 (p=0.001) and 0.8–1.0 for diagnosis of grade 2 varices (p<0.0001).ConclusionsOutpatient unsedated ultrathin endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis is accurate, safe and feasible. This integrative care model is convenient, particularly for regional communities, and is likely to result in significant cost savings associated with variceal surveillance.