Another indication for transnasal, unsedated upper-GI endoscopy

Necessity of transnasal gastroscopy in routine diagnostics: a patient-centred requirement analysis

Introduction

Numerous indications require regular upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy; EGD) in outpatients. In most cases, peroral gastroscopy is performed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the need of transnasal gastroscopy (nEGD) in outpatients.

Methods

A questionnaire was used to assess patients’ preferred choice of method, previous experience with EGD, psychological aspects and sociodemographic data. Furthermore, patient satisfaction with and potentially perceived discomfort during the examination as well as preference for a method in regard to future examinations was evaluated.

Results

From September 2016 to March 2017, a total of 283 outpatients at endoscopy of the University Hospital of Leipzig were approached to participate in the study. 196 patients were eligible, of whom 116 (60%) chose nEGD. For 87 patients (87/283, 31%) nEGD had to be excluded for medical reasons. The average age in the total sample was 53 (±17) years. 147 (77%) have had previous experience with peroral EGD (oEGD). Of the nEGD examined patients 83% were fairly up to extremely satisfied with the procedure. Satisfaction significantly predicted the choice of future EGD examinations. Nasal pain experienced during nEGDs was associated with rejection of nEGD in further EGD examinations (p<0.01). Patients who did choose a specific procedure were more likely to select the same procedure as their future preference (χ²= 73.6, df=1, p<0.001); this preference was unaffected by the procedure that had been chosen previously (reselecting nEGD: 84%, oEGD: 89%, p=0.874).

Conclusion

nEGD without sedation is a viable alternative. Patient satisfaction with nEGD is high, and reselection rate for nEGD is similar to that for oEGD. As a result of this study nEGD is now offered as a routine procedure at the University of Leipzig.

Trial registration number

NCT03663491.

Transnasal endoscopic retrograde chalangiopancreatography using an ultrathin endoscope: A prospective comparison with a routine oral procedure

AIM: To investigate if transnasal endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n-ERCP) using an ultrathin forward-viewing scope may overcome the disadvantages of conventional oral ERCP (o-ERCP) related to the large-caliber side-viewing duodenoscope.

METHODS: The study involved 50 patients in whom 25 cases each were assigned to the o-ERCP and n-ERCP groups. We compared the requirements of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) prior to ERCP, rates and times required for successful cannulation into the pancreatobiliary ducts, incidence of post-procedure hyperamylasemia, cardiovascular parameters during the procedure, the dose of a sedative drug, and successful rates of endoscopic naso-biliary drainage (ENBD).

RESULTS: Screening gastrointestinal observations were easily performed by the forward-viewing scope and thus no prior EGD was required in the n-ERCP group. There was no significant difference in the rates or times for cannulation, or incidence of hyperamylasemia between the groups. However, the cannulation was relatively difficult in n-ERCP when the scope appeared U-shape under fluoroscopy. Increments of blood pressure and the amount of a sedative drug were significantly lower in the n-ERCP group. ENBD was successfully performed succeeding to the n-ERCP in which mouth-to-nose transfer of the drainage tube was not required.

CONCLUSION: n-ERCP is likely a well-tolerable method with less cardiovascular stress and no need of prior EGD or mouth-to-nose transfer of the ENBD tube. However, a deliberate application is needed since its performance is difficult in some cases and is not feasible for some endoscopic treatments such as stenting.

Unsedated ultrathin upper endoscopy is better than conventional endoscopy in routine outpatient gastroenterology practice: A randomized trial

AIM: to compare the feasibility and patients’ tolerance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) using a thin endoscope with those of conventional oral EGD and to determine the optimal route of introduction of small-caliber endoscopes.

METHODS: One hundred and sixty outpatients referred for diagnostic EGD were randomly allocated to 3 groups: conventional (C)-EGD (9.8 mm in diameter), transnasal (TN)-EGD and transoral (TO)-EGD (5.9 mm in diameter). Pre-EGD anxiety was measured using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). After EGD, patients and endoscopists completed a questionnaire on the pain, nausea, choking, overall discomfort, and quality of the examination either using VAS or answering some questions. The duration of EGD was timed. Blood oxygen saturation (SaO₂) and heart rate (HR) were monitored during EGD.

RESULTS: Twenty-one patients refused to participate in the study. The 3 groups were well-matched for age, gender, experience with EGD, and anxiety. EGD was completed in 91.1% (41/45), 97.5% (40/41), and 96.2% (51/53) of cases in TN-EGD, TO-EGD, and C-EGD groups, respectively. TN-EGD lasted longer (3.11 ± 1.60 min) than TO-EGD (2.25 ± 1.45 min) and C-EGD (2.49 ± 1.64 min) (P < 0.05). The overall tolerance was higher (P < 0.05) and the overall discomfort was lower (P < 0.05) in TN-EGD group than in C-EGD group. EGD was tolerated “better than expected” in 73.2% of patients in TN-EGD group and 55% and 39.2% of patients in TO-EGD and C-EGD groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Endoscopy was tolerated “worst than expected” in 4.9% of patients in TN-EGD group and 17.5% and 23.5% of patients in TO-EGD and C-EGD groups, respectively (P < 0.05). TN-EGD caused mild epistaxis in one case. The ability to insufflate air, wash the lens, and suction of the thin endoscope were lower than those of conventional instrument (P < 0.001). All biopsies performed were adequate for histological assessment.

CONCLUSION: Diagnostic TN-EGD is better tolerated than C-EGD. Narrow-diameter endoscope has a level of diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of conventional gastroscope, even though some technical characteristics of these instruments should be improved. Transnasal EGD with narrow-diameter endoscope should be proposed to all patients undergoing diagnostic EGD.