A pilot study assessing tolerance safety and feasibility of diagnostic transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy using an improved larger caliber endoscope and an adapted topical anesthesia

Comparing blind spots of unsedated ultrafine, sedated, and unsedated conventional gastroscopy with and without artificial intelligence: a prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EGD is the most vital procedure for the diagnosis of upper GI lesions. We aimed to compare the performance of unsedated ultrathin transoral endoscopy (U-TOE), unsedated conventional EGD (C-EGD), and sedated C-EGD with or without the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) system.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial, 437 patients scheduled to undergo outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated U-TOE, unsedated C-EGD, or sedated C-EGD, and each group was then divided into 2 subgroups: with or without the assistance of an AI system to monitor blind spots during EGD. The primary outcome was the blind spot rate of these 3 groups with the assistance of AI. The secondary outcomes were to compare blind spot rates of unsedated U-TOE, unsedated, and sedated C-EGD with or without the assistance of AI, respectively, and the concordance between AI and the endoscopists' review.

RESULTS

The blind spot rate with AI-assisted sedated C-EGD was significantly lower than that of unsedated U-TOE and unsedated C-EGD (3.42% vs 21.77% vs 31.23%, respectively; P < .05). The blind spot rate of the AI subgroup was lower than that of the control subgroup in all 3 groups (sedated C-EGD: 3.42% vs 22.46%, P < .001; unsedated U-TOE: 21.77% vs 29.92%, P < .001; unsedated C-EGD: 31.23% vs 42.46%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The blind spot rate of sedated C-EGD was the lowest among the 3 types of EGD, and the addition of AI had a maximal effect on sedated C-EGD. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1900020920.).

Endoscopic meatus scoring scale versus sniff test to predict insertability before transnasal endoscopy: A prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Sniff test is a common method before unsedated transnasal esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (UT-EGD) to select a nostril insertion site. Yet there is no objective method to select a more specific meatus insertion tract for anesthesia and insertion. We devised an endoscopic meatus scoring scale by anterior meatuscopy to select the most optimal meatus insertion tract. We hypothesized that meatuscopy instead of sniff test might improve tolerance and reduce adverse events during nasal anesthesia and UT-EGD.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial to compare patient tolerance and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 359 patients were assessed and finally 310 patients were analyzed. There were no statistical differences in patient characteristics and insertion failure rates. Pain scores during nasal anesthesia, nasal insertion/exsertion, UT-EGD, and overall tolerance were significantly lower in the meatuscopy group than sniff test group. Compared with the sniff tested patients, the meatuscopied patients had significantly lower epistaxis rates during insertion/exsertion, better visual capacity after decongestive anesthesia, and shorter total procedure time. A significantly higher proportion of the meatuscopied than sniff tested patients would like to receive the same procedure next time. Nasal discharge, nasal pain, epistaxis, and blowing out blood clots occurred significantly less frequent in the meatuscopy group than sniff test group. More sniff tested than meatuscopied patients had headache, delayed epistaxis, and sinusitis although they were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Selection of an optimal meatus insertion tract by an anterior meatuscopy causes lesser nasal pain, epistaxis, and post-procedural side effects in nasal anesthesia and UT-EGD than the conventional sniff test.