A Prospective Randomized Comparison of Unsedated Ultrathin Versus Standard Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Routine Outpatient Gastroenterology Practice: Does It Work Better through the Nose?

Background and Study Aims: In an outpatient gastroenterological practice setting, highly effective diagnostic procedures and patient satisfaction play an important role. Ultrathin endoscopy in unsedated patients has been shown to be more cost-effective and time-efficient in comparison with standard endoscopy. A prospective randomized study was carried out in unsedated patients to compare performance, feasibility, safety, and patient tolerance between ultrathin transnasal (UT), ultrathin oral (UO), and standard (SO) esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).
Patients and Methods: A total of 200 of 600 eligible patients consented to participate in the study, and were randomly assigned to undergo UT, UO, or SO. Patients reported their tolerance of the procedure (anxiety, pain, gagging, and overall satisfaction; Likert scale 1-10), and the endoscopists reported the effectiveness of the procedure (handling, picture quality, and overall performance; Likert scale 1-10). Statistics were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results: After randomization, 65, 67, and 68 patients were allocated to the UT, UO, and SO groups, respectively. Failure to achieve complete EGD by the intended route occurred in 14 patients (22 %) in the UT group. Compared to the SO group, patients in the UT and UO groups rated anxiety before the procedure as being more intense - median score (10 % quantile estimate; 90 % quantile estimate): UT, 2.0 (1.0; 4.0); UO, 2.0 (1.0; 4.0); SO, 0.0 (0.0; 2.0); p < 0.0001), whereas SO patients experienced a higher level of anxiety during the procedure (P < 0.0001). Pain during insertion of the endoscope was the least intense in the UO group: UT, 2.0 (1.0; 5.0); UO, 1.0 (1.0; 3.0); SO, 2.0 (1.0; 4.0); P < 0.001). Gagging during insertion was more pronounced in the UO group: UT, 2.0 (1.0; 4.0); UO, 3.0 (1.0; 7.0); SO, 2.0 (1.0; 5.0); P < 0.01). The patients’ score for the overall assessment was better in the SO group (P < 0.0001). The endoscopists’ overall assessment for ultrathin EGD was poorer than for standard EGD: UT, 3.0 (2.0; 5.0); UO, 3.0 (2.0; 5.0); SO, 2.0 (1.0; 3.0); P < 0.0001).
Conclusions: Ultrathin endoscopy through both the transnasal and oral routes has limited use in routine outpatient practice. Techniques for reducing pain and gagging may improve patient tolerance. Further technical improvements are needed to allow routine implementation.

References

• 1 Dean R, Dua K, Massey B. et al . A comparative study of unsedated transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy and conventional EGD.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 422-424
• 2 Campo R, Montserrat A, Brullet E. Transnasal gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy: a randomized study of feasibility, safety and tolerance.  Endoscopy. 1998;  30 448-452
• 3 Craig A, Hanlon J, Dent J, Schoeman M. A comparison of transnasal and transoral endoscopy with small-diameter endoscopes in unsedated patients.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 292-296
• 4 Zaman A, Hahn M, Hapke R. et al . A randomized trial of peroral versus transnasal unsedated endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 279-284
• 5 Dumortier J, Ponchon T, Scoazec J Y. et al . Prospective evaluation of transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy: feasibility and study on performance and tolerance.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 285-291
• 6 Mulcahy H E, Riches A, Kiely M. et al . A prospective controlled trial of an ultrathin versus a conventional endoscope in unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 311-316
• 7 Heldwein W, Rösch T. Endoskopische Terminologie. Leitlinie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten.  Z Gastroenterol. 1999;  37 (Suppl 3) 1-129
• 8 Jones R, Lydeard S. Prevalence of symptoms of dyspepsia in the community.  BMJ. 1989;  298 30-32
• 9 Wu J CY, Sung J JY. Ulcer and gastritis.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 104-110
• 10 Lambert R. Diagnosis of esophagogastric tumors.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 129-138
• 11 Bell G D. Premedication, preparation and surveillance.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 2-12
• 12 Sivak M V Jr. The nose: is this the route to improving esophagogastroduodenoscopy? [editorial].  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 395-397
• 13 Bampton P A, Reid D P, Johnson R D. et al . A comparison of transnasal and transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy.  J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998;  13 579-584
• 14 Faulx AL, Catanzaro A, Zyzanski S. et al . Patient tolerance and acceptance of unsedated ultrathin esophagoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 620-623