A Randomized Prospective Trial Comparing Unsedated Esophagoscopy via Transnasal and Transoral Routes Using a 4-mm Video Endoscope with Conventional Endoscopy with Sedation

Background and Study Aims: Unsedated upper endoscopy is an attractive alternative to conventional sedated endoscopy because it can reduce the cost, complications, and recovery time of the procedure. However, it has not gained widespread acceptance in the United States. A prototype 4-mm-diameter video esophagoscope is available. Our aims were to compare unsedated esophagoscopy using this 4-mm esophagoscope with conventional sedated endoscopy with regard to diagnostic accuracy and patient tolerance, to determine the optimal intubation route (transnasal vs. transoral), and to identify the predictors of tolerance of unsedated endoscopy.
Patients and Methods: Outpatients presenting for conventional endoscopy were randomized to undergo unsedated esophagoscopy by either the transnasal or the transoral route, followed by conventional endoscopy. The diagnostic findings, optical quality, and patient tolerance scores were assessed.
Results: A total of 137 patients were approached and 90 (65.6 %) were randomized to undergo esophagoscopy by the transnasal route (n = 44) or by the transoral route (n = 46) before undergoing conventional esophagoscopy. Patient tolerance of unsedated esophagoscopy was comparable to that of conventional endoscopy. The transnasal route was better tolerated than the transoral route, except with respect to pain, and 93.2 % in transnasal group and 91.3 % in transoral group were willing to have the procedure again. The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy using the 4-mm video endoscope was similar to that of standard endoscopy. Patients who tolerated the procedure well had lower preprocedure anxiety scores (29 vs. 42.5, P = 0.021) and a higher body mass index (31.5 kg/m² vs. 28 kg/m², P = 0.029) than the other patients.
Conclusions: Unsedated esophagoscopy with a 4-mm esophagoscope was well tolerated and has a level of diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of conventional endoscopy. Factors associated with good tolerance of unsedated esophagoscopy were low anxiety levels, high body mass index, and use of the transnasal route. Unsedated endoscopy may be offered to a selected group of patients based on these criteria.

References

• 1 Center for Disease Control and Prevention . National Vital Statistics Reports. Number of ambulatory and inpatient procedures by procedure category and location: United States, 1996.  Natl Vital Stat Rep. 1998;  13 139
• 2 Medicare costs of upper endoscopy with and without biopsy .Available from:. http://cms.hhs.gov
• 3 Mokhashi M S, Hawes R H. Struggling towards easier endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 432-440
• 4 Silvis S E, Nebel O, Rogers G. et al . Endoscopic complications: results of 1974 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey.  JAMA. 1976;  235 928-930
• 5 Bell G D. Review article: premedication and intravenous sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1990;  4 103-122
• 6 Rozen P, Fireman Z, Gilat T. The causes of hypoxemia in elderly patients during endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1982;  28 243-246
• 7 Rozen P, Fireman Z, Gilat T. Arterial oxygen tension changes in elderly patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy II: influence of the narcotic premedication and endoscope diameter.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1981;  16 299-303
• 8 Rimmer K P, Graham K, Whitelaw W A. et al . Mechanisms of hypoxia during panendoscopy.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 1989;  11 17-22
• 9 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
• 10 Craig A, Hanlon J, Dent J. et al . A comparison of transnasal and transoral endoscopy with small-diameter endoscopes in unsedated patients.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 292-296
• 11 Rey J F, Duforest D, Marek T A. Prospective comparison of nasal versus oral insertion of a thin video endoscope in healthy volunteers.  Endoscopy. 1996;  28 436-437
• 12 Dumortier J, Ponchon T, Scoazec J Y. et al . Prospective evaluation of transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy: feasibility and study of performance and tolerance.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 285-291
• 13 Zaman A, Hapke R, Sahagun G. et al . Unsedated peroral endoscopy with a video ultrathin endoscope: patient acceptance, tolerance and diagnostic accuracy.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;  93 1260-1263
• 14 Sorbi D, Gostout C J, Henry J. et al . Unsedated small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) versus conventional EGD: a comparative study.  Gastroenterology. 1999;  117 1301-1307
• 15 Dean R, Dua K, Massey B. et al . A comparative study of unsedated transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy and conventional EGD.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 422-424
• 16 Bampton P A, Reid D P, Johnson R D. et al . A comparison of transnasal and transoral oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.  J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998;  13 579-584
• 17 Faulx A L, Catanzaro A, Zyzanski S. et al . Patient tolerance and acceptance of unsedated ultra-thin esophagoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 620-623
• 18 Mulcahy H E, Kelly P, Banks M R. et al . Factors associated with tolerance to, and discomfort with unsedated diagnostic gastroscopy.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 2001;  36 1352-1357
• 19 Froehlich F, Schwizer W, Thorens J. et al . Conscious sedation for gastroscopy: patient tolerance and cardiorespiratory parameters.  Gastroenterology. 1995;  108 697-704
• 20 Hedenbro J L, Lindblom A. Patient attitudes to sedation for diagnostic upper endoscopy.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1991;  26 115-120
• 21 Reed M WR, O’Leary D, Duncan J L. et al . Effects of sedation and supplemental oxygen during upper alimentary tract endoscopy.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1993;  28 319-322
• 22 Hedenbro J L, Ekelund M. Short note: endoscopic perforation in unsedated patients undergoing endoscopy.  Br J Surg. 1996;  83 845-846
• 23 Shaker R, Bowser M, Hogan W J. et al . Videoendoscopic characterization of abnormalities in pharyngeal phase of swallowing.  Gastroenterology. 1991;  100 A494
• 24 Kulling D, Bauerfiend P, Fried M. Transnasal versus transoral endoscopy for the placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in critically ill patients.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 506-510
• 25 Fregonese D, Di Falco G. Through the nose gastroscopy for the placement of feeding tubes.  Endoscopy. 1993;  25 539-541
• 26 Revill S I, Robinson J O, Rosen M. et al . The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain.  Anesthesia. 1976;  31 1191-1198
• 27 Morrow J B, Zuccaro G Jr, Conwell D L. et al . Sedation for colonoscopy using a single bolus is safe, effective and efficient: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;  95 2242-2247
• 28 Vargo J J, Zuccaro G Jr, Dumot J A. et al . Gastroenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial.  Gastroenterology. 2002;  123 8-16
• 29 Mulcahy H E, Riches A, Kiely M. et al . A prospective controlled trial of an ultra-thin versus a conventional endoscope in unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 311-316
• 30 Mokhashi M, Van Velse A, Sahai A V. et al . Large-scale screening for reflux esophagitis and Barrett’s: a reality with a new battery-powered, super-thin stand-alone esophagoscope?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 AB157
• 31 Khimich S. Level of sensitivity of pain in patients with obesity.  Acta Chir Hung. 1997;  36 166-167