Struggling toward easier endoscopy

Acupuncture to improve tolerance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients without systemic sedation: results of a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial (DRKS00000164)

Background

Sedation prior to esophagogastroduodenoscopy is widespread and increases patient comfort. However, it demands additional trained personnel, accounts for up to 40 % of total endoscopy costs and impedes rapid hospital discharge. Most patients lose at least one day of work. 98 % of all serious adverse events occurring during esophagogastroduodenoscopy are ascribed to sedation. Acupuncture is reported to be effective as a supportive intervention for gastrointestinal endoscopy, similar to conventional premedication. We investigated whether acupuncture during elective diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy could increase the comfort of patients refusing systemic sedation.

Methods

We performed a single-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled superiority trial to compare the success rates of elective diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies using real and placebo acupuncture. All patients aged 18 years or older scheduled for elective, diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy who refused systemic sedation were eligible; 354 patients were randomized. The primary endpoint measure was the rate of successful esophagogastroduodenoscopies. The intervention was real or placebo acupuncture before and during esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Successful esophagogastroduodenoscopy was based on a composite score of patient satisfaction with the procedure on a Likert scale as well as quality of examination, as assessed by the examiner.

Results

From February 2010 to July 2012, 678 patients were screened; 354 were included in the study. Baseline characteristics of the two groups showed a similar distribution in all but one parameter: more current smokers were allocated to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis included 177 randomized patients in each group. Endoscopy could successfully be performed in 130 patients (73.5 %) in the real acupuncture group and 129 patients (72.9 %) in the placebo group. Willingness to repeat the procedure under the same conditions was 86.9 % in the real acupuncture group and 87.6 % in the placebo acupuncture group.

Conclusions

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation is safe and can successfully be performed in two-thirds of patients. Patients planned for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation do not benefit from acupuncture of the Sinarteria respondens (Rs) 24 Chengjiang middle line, Pericard (Pc) 6 Neiguan bilateral, or Dickdarm (IC) 4 Hegu bilateral, according to traditional Chinese medicine meridian theory.

Trial registration

DRKS00000164. Registered on 10 December 2009.

Acupuncture for discomfort in patients during gastroscopy: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for discomfort in patients during gastroscopy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised controlled trials will be searched electronically in several databases including OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Medical Current Content (CMCC), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP database), Wan-Fang Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from their respective founding dates to 30 April 2014. We will also try to find the literature by manually searching conference abstracts and reference lists. The study selection, extraction of data and assessment of study quality will be conducted independently by two researchers. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan V.5.2 statistical software. Data will be combined with either the fixed or random effect model based on a heterogeneity test. The results will be presented as a risk ratio for dichotomous data and standardised mean difference for continuous data.

DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will evaluate the current evidence of acupuncture therapy for discomfort in patients during gastroscopy. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication or conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42014008966.

Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing real versus placebo acupuncture to improve tolerance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation: a study protocol

Background

Sedation prior to performance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDE) is widespread and increases patient comfort. But 98% of all serious adverse events during EGDEs are ascribed to sedation. The S3 guideline for sedation procedures in gastrointestinal endoscopy published in 2008 in Germany increases patient safety by standardization. These new regulations increase costs because of the need for more personnel and a prolonged discharge procedure after examinations with sedation. Many patients have difficulties to meet the discharge criteria regulated by the S3 guideline, e.g. the call for a second person to escort them home, to resign from driving and working for the rest of the day, resulting in a refusal of sedation. Therefore, we would like to examine if an acupuncture during elective, diagnostic EGDEs could increase the comfort of patients refusing systemic sedation.

Methods/Design

A single-center, double blinded, placebo controlled superiority trial to compare the success rates of elective, diagnostic EGDEs with real and placebo acupuncture. All patients aged 18 years or older scheduled for elective, diagnostic EGDE who refuse a systemic sedation are eligible. 354 patients will be randomized. The primary endpoint is the rate of successful EGDEs with the randomized technique. Intervention: Real or placebo acupuncture before and during EGDE. Duration of study: Approximately 24 months.

Discussion

Organisation/Responsibility The ACUPEND - Trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Center (IEZ) of the University Hospital Heidelberg is responsible for design and conduct of the trial, including randomization and documentation of patients' data. Data management and statistical analysis will be performed by the independent Institute for Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI) and the Center of Clinical Trials (KSC) at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg.

Trial registration

The trial is registered at Germanctr.de (DRKS00000164) on December 10^th 2009. The first patient was randomized on February 2^nd 2010.

High-definition endoscopy and magnifying endoscopy combined with narrow band imaging in gastric cancer

Gastric cancer is the third common cancer and is the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Endoscopy is being increasingly used for gastric cancer screening because of a high detection rate. Despite promising data, the technique depends heavily on the availability of endoscopic instruments and expertise for mass screening. Furthermore, the introduction of various new endoscopic devices and techniques may enhance the value of endoscopy in efficacious cancer screening. High-definition endoscopy and image-enhanced endoscopy, including narrow band imaging, are the key modalities in advanced endoscopic imaging in gastric cancer.

The effectiveness of clinical hypnosis in the digestive endoscopy: a multiple case report

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and viability of hypnosis before and during a gastrointestinal endoscopy. Six Gastroscopies and 22 colonoscopies were carried out under hypnosis in a group of patients. The patients ranged in age from 20 and 67 years and have a history of previously incomplete and poorly tolerated examinations or expressed an active demand for sedation. For 6 of the patients who underwent a gastroscopy under hypnosis, the procedure was successfully completed, reaching the second part of the duodenum without difficulty for the endoscopist. Colonoscopy of the cecum was completed in 19 of 20 patients. All patients, except 1, considered their tolerance level as "good." Hypnosis facilitated an adequate endoscopy intervention without any discomfort in 85% of the cases examined. Avoidance of anaesthesia reduces risk to the patient. Hence, hypnosis for gastrointestinal endoscopy appears to provide a promising strategy.

Ultrathin endoscopy versus high-resolution endoscopy for diagnosing superficial gastric neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Ultrathin endoscopy (UTE) is an acceptable and cost-effective alternative to EGD with the patient under sedation, although the diagnostic accuracy of UTE is not well established.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of UTE and high-resolution endoscopy (HRE) for superficial gastric neoplasia.

DESIGN

Prospective comparative study.

SETTING

Academic center.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Patients with or without superficial gastric neoplasia underwent peroral UTE and HRE, back-to-back in a random order while under standard sedation. The procedures were performed by 2 endoscopists who were blinded to the clinical information.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The rate of missed lesions and misdiagnosis, sensitivity, and specificity for the diagnosis of gastric neoplasia when using pathology as the reference standard.

RESULTS

In total, 126 lesions (41 superficial gastric neoplasias, 85 nonneoplastic lesions) were recorded in 57 enrolled patients. For the diagnosis of gastric neoplasia, the sensitivity of UTE (58.5%) was significantly (P = .021) lower than that of HRE (78%), and the specificity of UTE (91.8%) was significantly (P = .014) lower than that of HRE (100%). The rate of missed lesions and misdiagnosis of gastric neoplasias when using UTE (41.5%) was significantly (P > .001) higher than that of HRE (22.0%). The corresponding rate of neoplasias at the proximal portion (fornix and corpus) when using UTE (29%) was significantly (P = .002) higher than that of HRE (7.2%), although the rates of neoplasias at the distal portion (angulus and antrum) were comparable for UTE and HRE.

LIMITATION

Small sample numbers in an enriched population.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic accuracy of UTE is significantly lower than that of HRE for superficial gastric neoplasia, and this difference is particularly striking for neoplasias in the proximal stomach. For UTE to be used as an alternative modality, improvements in optical quality and the incorporation of additional procedures, including close-range observations and chromoendoscopy, are required to enhance visualization.

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy: a Canadian experience in daily practice

BACKGROUND

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the most frequently performed diagnostic procedure for upper gastrointestinal disorders. The procedure is routinely performed under conscious sedation in North America. A significant proportion of morbidity and mortality associated with EGD is related to hypoxia due to conscious sedation. The use of sedation is also associated with an increase in cost, loss of work on the day of endoscopy and the need for the patient to be accompanied home after the procedure. Transnasal endoscopy has advantages such as no sedation and less patient monitoring, nursing time and expenses than conventional per oral EGD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility and acceptability of unsedated transnasal EGD in daily practice.

METHODS

Patients due to undergo EGD were given a choice of either unsedated transnasal EGD or per oral EGD with sedation. Patients who chose unsedated transnasal EGD had the procedure performed in the office by a senior gastroenterologist with experience in transnasal EGD. All procedures were performed using a small-calibre esophagogastroduodenoscope. All patients were surveyed using a patient satisfaction questionnaire, and were asked to give specific scores in terms of choking sensation, sore throat, nasal discomfort and abdominal discomfort. All variables were assessed by scores between 0 and 10, with 10 indicating the most severe degree of each variable. Any complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

Between March 2002 and August 2003, 231 patients underwent transnasal EGD. The median age of the patients was 57 years (range 15 to 87 years). Complete examinations were possible in 98% of patients. Patients reported a high degree of acceptability (mean score 6.6, range 1 to 10) and low degrees of choking sensation (mean 1.8, range 0 to 10), nasal discomfort (mean 1.7, range 0 to 10), sore throat (mean 0.8, range 0 to 9) and abdominal discomfort (mean 1.1, range 0 to 10). The only complications reported by the patients were epistaxis (n=2, 0.9%) and sinusitis (n=1, 0.4%). Some patients also reported transient light-headedness (n=12, 5%) and mucous discharge (n=2, 0.9%). When asked, 185 patients (88%) stated that they were willing to undergo the same procedure in the future if medically indicated. Of the 84 patients who had conventional EGD under conscious sedation in the past, 52 patients (62%) preferred transnasal EGD without sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Transnasal EGD is generally well tolerated, feasible and safe. It can be performed with topical anesthesia in an outpatient setting. The low complication rate, high patient satisfaction and potential cost savings make transnasal endoscopy an attractive alternative to conventional EGD to screen patients for upper gastrointestinal tract diseases.

Self-training in unsedated transnasal EGD by endoscopists competent in standard peroral EGD: prospective assessment of the learning curve

BACKGROUND

Training programs in unsedated transnasal (UT) EGD are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively assess the learning curve for unsupervised UT-EGD.

SETTING

Endoscopy service, without experience in UT-EGD.

SUBJECTS

Consecutive patients referred for diagnostic EGD.

INTERVENTION

UT-EGD was attempted in 140 study patients by 2 endoscopists who trained by themselves in UT-EGD (skilled endoscopist [n = 70]; a trainee having recently achieved competency in conventional EGD [n = 70]) and in 10 controls (endoscopist skilled in UT-EGD) by using a 4.9-mm-diameter videoendoscope.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Technical success, sedation administered, patient tolerance acceptance, procedure duration for each decade of 10 consecutive patients investigated by the same endoscopist; intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Both self-trained endoscopists fulfilled predefined criteria of competency in UT-EGD since the first attempts. They completed examinations of adequate quality with exclusive transnasal scope insertion (n = 139 [99.3%]), no sedation (n = 138 [98.6%]), and patient accepting repeat procedure (n = 135 [96.4%]) in proportions not significantly different from controls for all decades. Compared with a median procedure duration of 5.5 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 5.0-8.5 minutes) in controls, procedures were significantly longer for all trainee's decades (eg, first decade 20.0 minutes [IQR 15.0-29.0 minutes], P < .001) but none for the skilled endoscopist. Overall discomfort, pain, gagging, and belching were not significantly different for study patients versus controls. Fifty-six of 69 study patients (81%) with a previous history of conventional EGD preferred UT-EGD.

LIMITATIONS

Generalizability to other small-caliber endoscopes.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists competent in conventional EGD may obtain excellent results with UT-EGD (except for procedure duration) beginning with their first attempts, even without supervision or structured training.

Application of different anesthetics in colonoscopy and their nursing supports

AIM: To compare the effectiveness and safety between fentanyl in combination with midazolam and propofol intravenous anesthesia in colonoscopy.

METHODS: A total of 130 cases of American Anesthetist Association (ASA) Ⅰ-Ⅱ were included in this study. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: FM group (intravenous infusion of fentany and midzolam, n = 75) and FP group (intravenous infusion of fentany and propofol, n = 55). The grade of sedation and analgesia, oblivious degree, onset time, recovery time, satisfaction of endoscopic inspection, respiratory inhibition, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and S_pO₂ were recorded.

RESULTS: Satisfactory sedation and analgesia were achieved in both FP and FM group, especially in FP group (t = 29.33, P < 0.01; t = 15.35, P < 0.01). The onset time (t = 6.63, P < 0.01), recovery time (t = 7.83, P < 0.01), oblivious rate (χ² = 22.70, P < 0.01), and satisfaction of endoscopic inspection (P < 0.01 or P < 0.05) in FP group were also superior to that in FM group. The variations of HR, MAP and S_pO₂ in FM group were less than that in FP group (P < 0.05). The incidence rates of respiratory inhibition (S_pO₂ < 90%) were respectively 4% (FM) and 3.6% (FP), which had no significant different (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Both of the two methods can produce safe and effective sedation and anesthesia in colonoscopy. The nursing supports such as respiratory and electrocardiac monitor as well as observation of the sedation depth must be strengthened.

Nurses working in GI and endoscopic practice: a review

BACKGROUND

Over the last 10 years, nurses increasingly perform tasks and procedures that were previously performed by physicians.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we investigated what types of GI care and endoscopic procedures nurses presently perform and reviewed the available evidence regarding the benefits of these activities.

DESIGN

Review of published articles on nurses' involvement in GI and endoscopic practice.

RESULTS

In total, 19 studies were identified that evaluated performance and participation of nurses in GI and endoscopic practice. Of these, 3 were randomized trials on the performance of nurses in flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 2) and upper endoscopy (n = 1). Fourteen nonrandomized studies evaluated performance in upper endoscopy (n = 2), EUS (n = 1), flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 7), capsule endoscopy (n = 2), and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement (n = 2). In all studies, it was found that nurses accurately and safely performed these procedures. Two further studies demonstrated that nurses adequately managed follow-up of patients with Barrett's esophagus and inflammatory bowel disease. Four of the 19 studies showed that patients were satisfied with the type of care nurses provided. Finally, it was suggested that costs were reduced if nurses performed a sigmoidoscopy and evaluated capsule endoscopy examinations compared with physicians performing these activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review support the involvement of nurses in diagnostic endoscopy and follow-up of patients with chronic GI disorders. Further randomized trials, however, are needed to demonstrate whether this involvement compares at least as favorably with gastroenterologists in terms of medical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and costs.

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.

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Are preparatory interventions or conscious sedation effective? A randomized trial

AIM: The fears and concerns are associated with gastroscopy (EGD) decrease patient compliance. Conscious sedation (CS) and non-pharmacological interventions have been proposed to reduce anxiety and allow better execution of EGD. The aim of this study was to assess whether CS, supplementary information with a videotape, or presence of a relative during the examination could improve the tolerance to EGD.

METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-six outpatients (pts), scheduled for a first-time non-emergency EGD were randomly assigned to 4 groups: Co-group (62 pts): throat anaesthesia only; Mi-group (52 pts): CS with i.v. midazolam; Re-group (58 pts): presence of a relative throughout the procedure; Vi-group (54 pts): additional information with a videotape. Anxiety was measured using the "Spielberger State and Trait Anxiety Scales". The patients assessed the overall discomfort during the procedure on an 100-mm visual analogue scale, and their tolerance to EGD answering a questionnaire. The endoscopist evaluated the technical difficulty of the examination and the tolerance of the patients on an 100-mm visual analogue scale and answering a questionnaire.

RESULTS: Pre-endoscopy anxiety levels were higher in the Mi-group than in the other groups (P < 0.001). On the basis of the patients' evaluation, EGD was well tolerated by 80.7% of patients in Mi-group, 43.5% in Co-group, 58.6% in Re-group, and 50% in Vi-group (P < 0.01). The discomfort caused by EGD, evaluated by either the endoscopist or the patients, was lower in Mi-group than in the other groups. The discomfort was correlated with "age" (P < 0.001) and "groups of patients" (P < 0.05) in the patients' evaluation, and with "gender" (females tolerated better than males, P < 0.001) and "groups of patients" (P < 0.05) in the endoscopist's evaluation.

CONCLUSION: Conscious sedation can improve the tolerance to EGD. Male gender and young age are predictive factors of bad tolerance to the procedure.

Sedation versus no sedation in the performance of diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a Canadian randomized controlled cost-outcome study

BACKGROUND

Sedation is not required to perform a technically adequate gastroscopy (EGDE), but does improve patient satisfaction, comfort, and willingness to repeat particularly in the elderly and those with decreased pharyngeal sensitivity. The comparative cost-efficacy of sedation versus no sedation remains poorly characterized.

AIM

To compare the cost-efficacy of diagnostic EGDE with and without sedation in an adult ambulatory Canadian population.

METHODS

A double-blind randomized controlled trial assigned patients to sedation versus placebo. "Successful endoscopy" was considered an EGDE rated 4/4 in technical adequacy (1 = inadequate to 4 = totally adequate), and 1-2/5 in patient self-reported comfort (1 = acceptable to 5 = unacceptable). Secondary outcomes included recovery room time, patient satisfaction alone, and willingness to repeat the procedure. Cost data were obtained using a published, institutional activity-based costing methodology. Analysis was intention to treat using standard univariate and multivariate methods.

RESULTS

419 patients (mean age 54.5, 48% male) were randomized (N = 210 active vs N = 209 placebo). Among patients randomized to active medication 76% of procedures were "successful" (placebo 46%), 79% were satisfied with their level of comfort (placebo 47%), and willingness to repeat was 81% (placebo 65%). We observed a 10% crossover rate from placebo to active medications. The use of sedation was the major determinant of successful endoscopy (OR = 3.8; 95% CI: 2.5-5.7), but contributed to an increased recovery room time (29 vs 15 min; p < 0.0001). The expected cost of an additional successful endoscopy using sedation was $90.06 (CDN). In a planned subgroup analysis, among the elderly (>75; N = 53) unsedated endoscopy became the dominant approach. Indeed, in this population, a trend was observed favoring the effectiveness of placebo (63%) versus active medication (57%) (OR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.25-2.3) and was less costly resulting in $450 savings/unsedated EGDE.

CONCLUSIONS

In the average Canadian ambulatory adult population, sedated diagnostic EGDE is more costly but remains an efficacious strategy by increasing the rate of successful endoscopies, patient satisfaction, and willingness to repeat. However, among the elderly (>75 yr), an unsedated strategy may be more cost-efficacious.

Sedación en la endoscopia digestiva. Resultados de una encuesta hospitalaria en Cataluña

INTRODUCTION

The need for sedation is increasing in digestive endoscopy units (DEU). There are no data on the use of sedation in DEU in Catalonia (Spain).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of sedation in DEU in Catalonia.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A questionnaire on the practice of sedation was designed and sent to the heads of medical and nursing staff of the DEU of 63 public and private hospitals in Catalonia. Two mailings were sent with an interval of three months between each. The questionnaire included 62 items on the characteristics of the hospital and the DEU, number of explorations, frequency of sedation use, drugs employed, participation of an anesthesiologist, use of monitoring, and complications.

RESULTS

Forty-four DEU (70%) corresponding to 31 public hospitals and 13 private hospitals completed the questionnaire. Evaluation of sedation patterns was based on 105,904 explorations performed in the various DEU (56,453 gastroscopies, 47,278 colonoscopies and 2,173 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCP) in 2001. Sedation, sedation-analgesia or anesthesia was used in 17% of gastroscopies, 61% of colonoscopies and 100% of ERCP. Sedation was administered by an anesthesiologist in 7% of gastroscopies, 25% of colonoscopies and 38% of ERCP. Anesthesiologist administration was more frequent in private than in public centers (gastroscopies: 25% vs. 2%; colonoscopies: 57% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). No deaths associated with the use of sedation were reported. Eighty-nine percent of the DEU complied with standard recommendations for the practice of sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

In Catalonia, the use of sedation is highly variable, depending on the endoscopic procedure and the DEU. Use of sedation in infrequent in gastroscopy, fairly widespread in colonoscopy and routine in ERCP. Anesthesiologist administration is significantly more frequent in private hospitals. Most DEU follow standard sedation practices.

Unsedated small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD): less expensive and less time-consuming than conventional EGD

BACKGROUND

A significant portion of the costs and complications of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) are related to the use of sedation. The feasibility and tolerability of small-caliber EGD (scEGD) without sedation has been evaluated; however, there is limited data concerning times and costs associated with this procedure as compared with conventional EGD (cEGD) with sedation.

STUDY

Sixteen patients underwent scEGD with the Pentax EG-1840 (outside diameter, 6 mm) without sedation. A control group of 16 patients was matched for age, sex, day, and indication of procedure. The time of procedure, time in procedure room, time in recovery room, and procedure costs were determined in both the study and control groups. After the procedure, scEGD patients completed surveys consisting of visual-analogue scales to assess tolerance and preference regarding sedation for future procedures.

RESULTS

Procedure time, procedure room time, and recovery room time was 5.2, 16.3, and 9 minutes for scEGD and 13.5, 34.9, and 41.3 minutes for cEGD, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The mean cost of scEGD, excluding physician fees, was $462.00, which was significantly lower than the $587.00 for cEGD (p < 0.001). Survey results revealed good tolerance for the unsedated procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsedated scEGD was well tolerated and resulted in a shorter time of procedure, less time spent in procedure room, reduced recovery room time, and lower costs as compared with cEGD with sedation.

Changing patterns of sedation use for routine out-patient diagnostic gastroscopy between 1989 and 1998

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of sedation trends for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is important for health service planning, particularly in view of rapidly increasing demands on endoscopy services. However, no data are available on sedation trends in Britain over the past 10 years.

AIM

To determine sedation use for routine gastroscopy in a single endoscopy unit between 1989 and 1998.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 9795 consecutive adults (mean age 56 years, range 18-100 years; 4512 females) who had undergone a gastroscopy between 1989 and 1998. Clinical, pharmacological and endoscopic data were retrieved from a computerized database.

RESULTS

Over the 10-year study period, the sedation rate remained constant for patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopy (P=0.99) and those undergoing in-patient diagnostic examinations (P=0.63). In contrast, the sedation rate for out-patient diagnostic endoscopy decreased by 54%, from a high of 70% in 1990 to 32% in 1998 (P < 0.0001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the decline in sedation use was greater in females (P < 0.0001) than males and in procedures performed by non-consultant compared to consultant staff (P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

If our results form part of a national trend, they will have important implications for cardiopulmonary monitoring strategies, recovery room practices and for complication rates due to the use of sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Patient attitudes toward undergoing colonoscopy without sedation

OBJECTIVE

The vast majority of patients undergoing colonoscopy in the United States are given sedation. There are a number of potential advantages to performing colonoscopy without sedation. We sought to determine the attitude of patients toward unsedated colonoscopy in our three practice settings (a university medical center, a cancer center, and a Veterans Affairs medical center), and to see if there were factors that predicted willingness to try it.

METHODS

Four-hundred thirty-four adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy completed questionnaires before and after their procedures providing demographic information and assessing willingness to undergo colonoscopy without sedation. Patients were routinely given meperidine and midazolam for their procedures unless they specifically requested that they be unsedated (10 patients).

RESULTS

Only 16.9% of our patients were willing to undergo colonoscopy on their preprocedure questionnaire. Willingness increased modestly on the postprocedure questionnaire to 22.6% (p = 0.01). Logistic regression analysis disclosed that male gender, having a college degree, low anxiety based on preprocedure anxiety scales, and lower doses of sedative drugs used during colonoscopy were the best predictors of willingness to undergo colonoscopy without sedation in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Only about a fifth of patients undergoing colonoscopy in our three practice settings expressed a willingness to try colonoscopy unsedated. Male gender, higher levels of education, and low anxiety scores on simple scales of preprocedure anxiety may help to predict willingness. Efforts to substantially increase the frequency of patients willing to undergo colonoscopy without sedation will likely require increased patient counseling and education.