A randomized trial of peroral versus transnasal unsedated endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope

Atif Zaman, M. Hahn, R. Hapke, Kandice Knigge, M (Brian) Fennerty, Ronald Katon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

122 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Potential advantages of unsedated endoscopy include the prevention of side effects or morbidity related to the use of sedative drugs, less intensive patient monitoring, and less expense. We compared transnasal (T-EGD) with peroral (P-EGD) unsedated endoscopy by using an ultrathin video instrument with respect to patient tolerance and acceptance. Method: Patients were randomized to T-EGD or P-EGD. If the initial route of insertion failed, the patient was crossed over to the other route. If this also failed, the patient underwent endoscopy under conscious sedation with an ultrathin instrument. A questionnaire for tolerance was completed by the patient (a validated 0-10 scale where '0' represents none/well tolerated and '10' represents severe/poorly tolerated). Results: Of 105 recruited patients, 60 consented to undergo unsedated endoscopy. There were 20 men and 11 women (mean age 45 years) in the P-EGD group and 15 men and 14 women (mean age 48 years) in the T-EGD group. Of 35 total P-EGD patients (4 were crossed over T- EGD patients), 34 (97%) completed an unsedated examination. Of 29 T-EGD patients, 25 (86%) had a complete examination. Three T-EGD examinations failed for anatomical reasons; all 3 patients when crossed over to the P-EGD route had a successful examination. One patient was unable to tolerate either route. Between the P-EGD and the T-EGD groups, pre-procedure anxiety (3.6 ± 0.5 vs. 3.0 ± 0.6), discomfort during insertion (2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.3 ± 0.7), gagging (4.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.6), and overall tolerance (2.4 ± 0.5 vs. 3.8 ± 0.7) were similar (p > 0.05). However, discomfort on insertion was significantly greater in the T-EGD versus the P-EGD group (4.4 ± 0.6 vs. 2.7 ± 0.5: p <0.05). Eighty-nine percent of P-EGD patients and 69% of T-EGD patients, p = 0.07, were willing to undergo unsedated endoscopy in the future. Conclusion: T-EGD patients experienced significantly more pain on insertion than did P-EGD patients. Otherwise, unsedated endoscopy by either the transnasal or the peroral route is generally well tolerated. In this study it was completed in 59 of 60 patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)279-284
Number of pages6
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume49
Issue number3 I
DOIs
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

Endoscopy
Gagging
Conscious Sedation
Physiologic Monitoring
Hypnotics and Sedatives
Anxiety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

A randomized trial of peroral versus transnasal unsedated endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope. / Zaman, Atif; Hahn, M.; Hapke, R.; Knigge, Kandice; Fennerty, M (Brian); Katon, Ronald.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 49, No. 3 I, 1999, p. 279-284.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f1f95ce63c0f40bbb410d51c7a746079,
title = "A randomized trial of peroral versus transnasal unsedated endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope",
abstract = "Background: Potential advantages of unsedated endoscopy include the prevention of side effects or morbidity related to the use of sedative drugs, less intensive patient monitoring, and less expense. We compared transnasal (T-EGD) with peroral (P-EGD) unsedated endoscopy by using an ultrathin video instrument with respect to patient tolerance and acceptance. Method: Patients were randomized to T-EGD or P-EGD. If the initial route of insertion failed, the patient was crossed over to the other route. If this also failed, the patient underwent endoscopy under conscious sedation with an ultrathin instrument. A questionnaire for tolerance was completed by the patient (a validated 0-10 scale where '0' represents none/well tolerated and '10' represents severe/poorly tolerated). Results: Of 105 recruited patients, 60 consented to undergo unsedated endoscopy. There were 20 men and 11 women (mean age 45 years) in the P-EGD group and 15 men and 14 women (mean age 48 years) in the T-EGD group. Of 35 total P-EGD patients (4 were crossed over T- EGD patients), 34 (97{\%}) completed an unsedated examination. Of 29 T-EGD patients, 25 (86{\%}) had a complete examination. Three T-EGD examinations failed for anatomical reasons; all 3 patients when crossed over to the P-EGD route had a successful examination. One patient was unable to tolerate either route. Between the P-EGD and the T-EGD groups, pre-procedure anxiety (3.6 ± 0.5 vs. 3.0 ± 0.6), discomfort during insertion (2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.3 ± 0.7), gagging (4.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.6), and overall tolerance (2.4 ± 0.5 vs. 3.8 ± 0.7) were similar (p > 0.05). However, discomfort on insertion was significantly greater in the T-EGD versus the P-EGD group (4.4 ± 0.6 vs. 2.7 ± 0.5: p <0.05). Eighty-nine percent of P-EGD patients and 69{\%} of T-EGD patients, p = 0.07, were willing to undergo unsedated endoscopy in the future. Conclusion: T-EGD patients experienced significantly more pain on insertion than did P-EGD patients. Otherwise, unsedated endoscopy by either the transnasal or the peroral route is generally well tolerated. In this study it was completed in 59 of 60 patients.",
author = "Atif Zaman and M. Hahn and R. Hapke and Kandice Knigge and Fennerty, {M (Brian)} and Ronald Katon",
year = "1999",
doi = "10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70001-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "279--284",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3 I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized trial of peroral versus transnasal unsedated endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope

AU - Zaman, Atif

AU - Hahn, M.

AU - Hapke, R.

AU - Knigge, Kandice

AU - Fennerty, M (Brian)

AU - Katon, Ronald

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - Background: Potential advantages of unsedated endoscopy include the prevention of side effects or morbidity related to the use of sedative drugs, less intensive patient monitoring, and less expense. We compared transnasal (T-EGD) with peroral (P-EGD) unsedated endoscopy by using an ultrathin video instrument with respect to patient tolerance and acceptance. Method: Patients were randomized to T-EGD or P-EGD. If the initial route of insertion failed, the patient was crossed over to the other route. If this also failed, the patient underwent endoscopy under conscious sedation with an ultrathin instrument. A questionnaire for tolerance was completed by the patient (a validated 0-10 scale where '0' represents none/well tolerated and '10' represents severe/poorly tolerated). Results: Of 105 recruited patients, 60 consented to undergo unsedated endoscopy. There were 20 men and 11 women (mean age 45 years) in the P-EGD group and 15 men and 14 women (mean age 48 years) in the T-EGD group. Of 35 total P-EGD patients (4 were crossed over T- EGD patients), 34 (97%) completed an unsedated examination. Of 29 T-EGD patients, 25 (86%) had a complete examination. Three T-EGD examinations failed for anatomical reasons; all 3 patients when crossed over to the P-EGD route had a successful examination. One patient was unable to tolerate either route. Between the P-EGD and the T-EGD groups, pre-procedure anxiety (3.6 ± 0.5 vs. 3.0 ± 0.6), discomfort during insertion (2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.3 ± 0.7), gagging (4.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.6), and overall tolerance (2.4 ± 0.5 vs. 3.8 ± 0.7) were similar (p > 0.05). However, discomfort on insertion was significantly greater in the T-EGD versus the P-EGD group (4.4 ± 0.6 vs. 2.7 ± 0.5: p <0.05). Eighty-nine percent of P-EGD patients and 69% of T-EGD patients, p = 0.07, were willing to undergo unsedated endoscopy in the future. Conclusion: T-EGD patients experienced significantly more pain on insertion than did P-EGD patients. Otherwise, unsedated endoscopy by either the transnasal or the peroral route is generally well tolerated. In this study it was completed in 59 of 60 patients.

AB - Background: Potential advantages of unsedated endoscopy include the prevention of side effects or morbidity related to the use of sedative drugs, less intensive patient monitoring, and less expense. We compared transnasal (T-EGD) with peroral (P-EGD) unsedated endoscopy by using an ultrathin video instrument with respect to patient tolerance and acceptance. Method: Patients were randomized to T-EGD or P-EGD. If the initial route of insertion failed, the patient was crossed over to the other route. If this also failed, the patient underwent endoscopy under conscious sedation with an ultrathin instrument. A questionnaire for tolerance was completed by the patient (a validated 0-10 scale where '0' represents none/well tolerated and '10' represents severe/poorly tolerated). Results: Of 105 recruited patients, 60 consented to undergo unsedated endoscopy. There were 20 men and 11 women (mean age 45 years) in the P-EGD group and 15 men and 14 women (mean age 48 years) in the T-EGD group. Of 35 total P-EGD patients (4 were crossed over T- EGD patients), 34 (97%) completed an unsedated examination. Of 29 T-EGD patients, 25 (86%) had a complete examination. Three T-EGD examinations failed for anatomical reasons; all 3 patients when crossed over to the P-EGD route had a successful examination. One patient was unable to tolerate either route. Between the P-EGD and the T-EGD groups, pre-procedure anxiety (3.6 ± 0.5 vs. 3.0 ± 0.6), discomfort during insertion (2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 3.3 ± 0.7), gagging (4.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.6), and overall tolerance (2.4 ± 0.5 vs. 3.8 ± 0.7) were similar (p > 0.05). However, discomfort on insertion was significantly greater in the T-EGD versus the P-EGD group (4.4 ± 0.6 vs. 2.7 ± 0.5: p <0.05). Eighty-nine percent of P-EGD patients and 69% of T-EGD patients, p = 0.07, were willing to undergo unsedated endoscopy in the future. Conclusion: T-EGD patients experienced significantly more pain on insertion than did P-EGD patients. Otherwise, unsedated endoscopy by either the transnasal or the peroral route is generally well tolerated. In this study it was completed in 59 of 60 patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032975835&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032975835&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70001-5

DO - 10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70001-5

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 279

EP - 284

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 3 I

ER -