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

Examination tolerance, pre-examination anxiety, knowledge needs and cooperation in gastroscopic examinees: A prospective, correlational analysis in a health screening population

AIM

To explore the correlations between examination tolerance and anxiety, knowledge needs and examination cooperation in sedation-free gastroscopy examinees.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey using convenience sampling.

METHODS

A total of 170 healthy adults who underwent sedation-free gastroenteroscopy were asked to complete a visual analogue scale (VAS) to rate their examination tolerance, the state anxiety questionnaire (S-AI), a newly designed knowledge needs questionnaire and a cooperation questionnaire.

RESULTS

The VAS score was 4.47 ± 1.96, the state anxiety score was 39.46 ± 9.81, the total score for knowledge needs was 44.89 ± 11.02, and the average cooperation score was 2.47 ± 0.38. The VAS score during the examination positively correlated with the pretest state anxiety score and pretest knowledge needs score and negatively correlated with the examination cooperation score. The results of multiple linear regression analysis showed that after undergoing the examination for the first time, anxiety, body position and swallowing control were the main factors influencing the examination tolerance of sedation-free gastroscopy examinees.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We would like to thank the staff and patients of the participating hospital for their assistance and cooperation in performing the current study.

Effect of Premedication with Glycopyrrolate on Patient Tolerance and Procedure Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial

Background and aim

An optimal topical pharyngeal anesthesia (TPA) is required for better patient tolerance and procedural outcomes of an unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE). Several additional strategies have been tried to improve patient tolerance with limited success. We hypothesized that premedication with glycopyrrolate would enhance TPA and improve patient tolerance and procedural outcomes of an unsedated UGIE.

Materials and methods

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial between July 2020 and May 2022. Consecutive patients undergoing unsedated UGIE were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous glycopyrrolate or a placebo 30 minutes before TPA. Patient tolerance, comfort level for the endoscopist, cardiorespiratory fluctuations, percentage of failed esophageal intubation, and incomplete examination were studied.

Results

380 patients were randomized to 190 in each arm. The median (IQR) VAS scores for the overall patient satisfaction in the glycopyrrolate and placebo groups were 8 (1) and 7 (2), respectively (p = 0.04). The median (IQR) VAS scores for endoscopist assessment of patient cooperation in the glycopyrrolate and placebo groups were 8 (1.3) and 8 (1), respectively (p = 0.04). There was no difference in the percentage of failed esophageal intubation and incomplete examination, fluctuations in heart rate, and oxygen saturation of the participants. However, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) on-table before the start of the procedure at 1 minute and 3 minutes was significantly higher in the glycopyrrolate group (p = 0.01, 0.01, and 0.04, respectively).

Conclusion

In unsedated UGIE, glycopyrrolate premedication significantly improves the patient tolerance and endoscopist's comfort, with minimal cardiorespiratory effects. Hence, it could be incorporated into day-care unsedated endoscopy practice.Trial registration - CTRI/2020/07/026786.

How to cite this article

Ramalingam R, Senthamizhselvan K, Harichandrakumar KT, et al. Effect of Premedication with Glycopyrrolate on Patient Tolerance and Procedure Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2023;13(2):55-60.

Adverse events of conscious sedation using midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background

This study was conducted to identify the types and incidence of adverse events associated with midazolam, which is the most widely used drug to induce conscious sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy, and to analyze the factors associated with hypoxemia and sedation failure.

Methods

Of 87,740 patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy between February 2015 and May 2017, the electronic medical records of 335 who reportedly developed adverse events were retrospectively reviewed, and analysis was performed to determine the risk factors for hypoxemia and sedation failure, the two most frequent adverse events among those manifested during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Results

The overall adverse event rate was 0.38% (n = 335); hypoxemia was most frequent, accounting for 40.7% (n = 90), followed by sedation failure (34.8%, n = 77), delayed discharge from the recovery room (22.1%, n = 49), and hypotension (2.2%, n = 5). Compared with the control group, the hypoxemia group did not show any significant differences in sex and body weight, but mean age was significantly older (P < 0.001) and a significantly lower dose of midazolam was administered (P < 0.001). In the group with sedation failure, the mean rate was higher in men (P < 0.001) and a significantly higher dose of midazolam was administered (P < 0.001), but no age difference was found.

Conclusions

Midazolam-based conscious sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy can lead to various adverse events. In particular, as elderly patients are at higher risk of developing hypoxemia, midazolam dose adjustment and careful monitoring are required in this group.

Intolerance of Uncertainty and Anxiety-Related Dispositions Predict Pain During Upper Endoscopy

Although sedatives can defuse anxiety and relieve pain, Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) still is uncomfortable and threatening for some patients. Identifying patients who tolerate digestive endoscopy less well remains difficult. Using a prospective design and a multimodal assessment of pain, the present study evaluated how anxiety-related variables predicted subsequent pain outcomes. Sixty-two consecutive patients referred for elective EGD were assessed for intolerance of uncertainty (IU), procedure-related worries, anxiety sensitivity and health distress before endoscopy. During endoscopy, a doctor rated patients’ pain behavior. After complete recovery from sedation, the patients retrospectively rated endoscopy pain and situation specific catastrophizing thoughts. Descriptive analyses showed that patients undergoing EGD for the first time were more distressed and anxious than patients accustomed to the procedure and needed a higher sedative dose. Notwithstanding sedation, the behavioral rating of pain was above the cut-off value for probable pain for more than half of the patients. IU assessed before endoscopy predicted situational pain catastrophizing (PC) and self-reported pain after endoscopy through procedure related worries. Situational PC not only mediated the effect of worry, but also female gender and younger age were associated with self-reported pain through increased catastrophizing thoughts. Health distress and anxiety sensitivity predicted PC only for women, younger patients, and those not accustomed to the procedure. Our study showed that psychological preparation before sedation is needed especially for first-timers, women, and younger patients, addressing maladaptive cognitive beliefs and acquainting patients with the somatic sensations that they might experience during the procedure.

Serbian Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Questionnaire for Assessing Patient Satisfaction with Endoscopic Examination of the Digestive Tract

Patient satisfaction is a key indicator to assess the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy. The aim of this study was to examine the Serbian translation and cross-cultural validation of the questionnaire for the assessment of satisfaction in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy.

After obtaining the consent of the author of the original questionnaire, translation and cross-cultural validation of the GESQ (Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire) were carried out in accordance with the conductors of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). The study was conducted in the Center for Gastroenterohepatology (GEH) of the Kragujevac Clinical Center and included 165 patients. The reliability of the Serbian translation of the GESQ was estimated by calculating Cronbach’s alpha for the whole questionnaire in order to implement the structural validation. The overall score of the questionnaire was compared and correlated with the total scores on the Short Subjective Well-being scale (KSB) and visual analogue scale (VAS), which were administered to the same patients.

The Serbian translation of the GESQ showed high reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.763, good structure and homogeneity by randomly sharing the questionnaire into two parts. Exploratory factor analysis indicated the existence of four factors that explain 57.200% of the variability.

The Serbian version of the GESQ showed similar psychometric characteristics to the original English questionnaire, with a similar factor structure, and represented a valid, reliable and acceptable tool for the assessment of patient satisfaction with the endoscopic examination of the digestive tract.

Use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents is not related to epistaxis in patients undergoing transnasal endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) has become accepted as a safe and tolerable method for upper gastrointestinal tact examinations. Epistaxis is 1 of the major complications of TNE, though its risk factors have not been elucidated. Generally, patients administered an anticoagulant or antiplatelet drug are considered to have an increased risk of epistaxis during TNE. Here, we investigated risk factors of epistaxis in patients undergoing uTNE, with focus on those who received antithrombotic agents.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 6860 patients (average age 55.6 ± 12.97 years; 3405 males, 3455 females) who underwent uTNE and received the same preparations for the procedure. Epistaxis was evaluated using endoscopic images obtained while withdrawing the scope through the nostril. We also noted current use of medications including anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents prior to the endoscopic examination.

RESULTS

Epistaxis occurred in 3.6 % of the enrolled patients (245/6860), and that rate was significantly higher in younger patients (average age 49.31 ± 11.8 years for epistaxis group vs. 55.83 ± 13.0 years for no epistaxis group, P  < 0.01) as well as females (4.78 % vs. 2.35 %, P  < 0.01). The odds ratio for occurrence of epistaxis was 2.31 (95 %CI: 1.746 - 3.167) in the younger patients and 2.02 (95 % CI: 1.542 - 2.659) in females. In contrast, there was no significant difference for rate of epistaxis between patients with and without treatment with an antithrombotic agent (3.0 % vs. 3.6 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of epistaxis was higher in younger and female patients. Importantly, that rate was not significantly increased in patients who were administered an antithrombotic agent.

Reassessing the value of gastroscopy for the investigation of dyspepsia

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic yield of investigating dyspepsia with oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) with or without mucosal biopsy.

DESIGN

Retrospective service evaluation study.

SETTING

Two teaching hospitals: The Royal Hallamshire Hospital and Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

PATIENTS

500 patients, 55 years of age and over, who underwent OGD to investigate dyspepsia were included. The study period included a 3-month window. All OGDs were performed on an outpatient basis.

INTERVENTIONS

Data were extracted from electronic OGD records within the study period.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Diagnostic yield provided by endoscopic examination and histological assessment.

RESULTS

378 patients (75.6%) were reported to have some form of endoscopic abnormality, and 417 patients (83.4%) had biopsies taken. The most common findings at OGD were gastritis (47.2%) and oesophagitis (24.4%). Oesophagogastric malignancy was seen in 1%. Diagnoses made endoscopically or histologically that would not have been appropriately managed by empirical therapies were seen in 16.2%.

CONCLUSION

OGD in dyspepsia influences patient management in approximately one-sixth of cases. However, the majority of patients are sufficiently managed with Helicobacter pylori testing and eradication and/or a trial of proton pump inhibitor therapy. Further non-invasive approaches are needed to identify patients who need endoscopy for biopsy or therapy.

Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)

This document represents the first position statement produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, setting out the minimum expected standards in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The need for this statement has arisen from the recognition that while technical competence can be rapidly acquired, in practice the performance of a high-quality examination is variable, with an unacceptably high rate of failure to diagnose cancer at endoscopy. The importance of detecting early neoplasia has taken on greater significance in this era of minimally invasive, organ-preserving endoscopic therapy. In this position statement we describe 38 recommendations to improve diagnostic endoscopy quality. Our goal is to emphasise practices that encourage mucosal inspection and lesion recognition, with the aim of optimising the early diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disease and improving patient outcomes.

The learning curve to achieve satisfactory completion rates in upper GI endoscopy: an analysis of a national training database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the number of OGDs (oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopies) trainees need to perform to acquire competency in terms of successful unassisted completion to the second part of the duodenum 95% of the time.

DESIGN

OGD data were retrieved from the trainee e-portfolio developed by the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) in the UK. All trainees were included unless they were known to have a baseline experience of >20 procedures or had submitted data for <20 procedures. The primary outcome measure was OGD completion, defined as passage of the endoscope to the second part of the duodenum without physical assistance. The number of OGDs required to achieve a 95% completion rate was calculated by the moving average method and learning curve cumulative summation (LC-Cusum) analysis. To determine which factors were independently associated with OGD completion, a mixed effects logistic regression model was constructed with OGD completion as the outcome variable.

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 1255 trainees over 288 centres, representing 243 555 OGDs. By moving average method, trainees attained a 95% completion rate at 187 procedures. By LC-Cusum analysis, after 200 procedures, >90% trainees had attained a 95% completion rate. Total number of OGDs performed, trainee age and experience in lower GI endoscopy were factors independently associated with OGD completion.

CONCLUSIONS

There are limited published data on the OGD learning curve. This is the largest study to date analysing the learning curve for competency acquisition. The JAG competency requirement for 200 procedures appears appropriate.

The influence of escort during upper endoscopy and colonoscopy on patient satisfaction and anxiety

AIM

Endoscopy, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy (CS), is a diagnostic and treatment method for various diseases. We aimed to evaluate the effects of the presence of an escort by the patient on patients' satisfaction and anxiety level before and after upper endoscopy and CS.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients who referred to the Hajar Hospital for elective EGD and CS were recruited. The patients were divided into two groups: The first group underwent endoscopy/CS with an escort beside the patient and the escort was waiting in the waiting room in the second group. After interventions, patients' and their escort's levels of anxiety and satisfaction were evaluated. Anxiety level was compared before and after endoscopy.

RESULTS

Of 211 patients, 106 were referred for EGD and 105 for CS. Anxiety was same in both groups before the interventions (P > 0.05), which decreased in both after the EGD or CS (P < 0.05). Anxiety reduction after CS was influenced by the presence of the escort and the level of anxiety was less in this group than other group (P < 0.05). Satisfaction of the EGD and CS in the group that had an escort by their side was more than the other (P < 0.05). Escorts had a moderate level of anxiety in both groups with a marked reduction after endoscopy and CS (P < 0.05). However, the level of anxiety before and after endoscopy was similar in both groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Having an escort at the time of endoscopy or CS appears to be an effective costless complication-free measure for increasing satisfaction and reducing anxiety in patients.

What do patients want from their endoscopy experience? The importance of measuring and understanding patient attitudes to their care

Understanding and addressing patient attitudes to their care facilitates their engagement and attendance, improves the quality of their experience and the appropriate utilisation of resources. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a commonly performed medical procedure that can be associated with patient anxiety and apprehension. Measuring patient attitudes to endoscopy can be undertaken through a number of approaches with contrasting benefits and limitations. Methodological validation is necessary for accurate interpretation of results and avoiding bias. Retrospective post-procedure questionnaires measuring satisfaction are easily undertaken but have limited value, particularly in directing service improvements. Patient experience questionnaires indicate areas of poor care but may reflect the clinician's not the patient's perspective. Directly assessing patient priorities and expectations identifies what is important to patients in their healthcare experience (patient-reported value) that can also provide a basis for other forms of evaluation. Published studies of patient attitudes to their endoscopy procedure indicate the importance of ensuring that endoscopists and their staff control patient discomfort, have adequate technical skill and effectively communicate with their patient relating to the procedure and results. Environmental factors, including noise, privacy and the single-sex environment, are considered to have less value. There are contrasting views on patient attitudes to waiting times for the procedure. Implementing patient-centred care in endoscopy requires an understanding of what patients want from their healthcare experience. The results from available studies suggest implications for current practice that relate to the training and practice of the endoscopist and their staff.

Long-term patient satisfaction of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Background

We prospectively assessed patient satisfaction in a Greek Academic endoscopy facility.

Methods

Consecutive outpatients filled a satisfaction questionnaire right after their endoscopy (D1), 3 days (D3) and 3 months (M3) later. Overall patient satisfaction was measured by their willingness to repeat endoscopy in our facility and to further recommend it. Participant satisfaction regarding pre-procedural, procedural and post-procedural issues was measured using a five-step Likert scale in 19 items with 4 and 5 scores indicating favorable responses. Pareto analysis was used to determine service issues requiring improvement. Late adverse events were recorded at D3 and M3 assessments.

Results

Over six months, 501 patients participated (89.4% and 87.8% response rate at D3 and M3 assessments, respectively). More than 97% of the participants would repeat the procedure in our facility and would recommend our endoscopy service, at all three assessments. Pareto analysis identified waiting time until the appointment and on the day of the examination, discomfort during and after the endoscopy, time to obtain the pathology report and overall management of the patient problems as the issues requiring improvement. No predictor of high satisfaction score has been identified. No serious late adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

Despite the overall high levels of patient satisfaction, management of patient discomfort and organizational issues need improvement.

The Effect of Information About Gynecological Examination on the Anxiety Level of Women Applying to Gynecology Clinics: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Background:

Crowded hospital outpatient clinics and endless waiting lines that make patients feel overlooked tend to exaggerate patients’ anxiety levels. In addition, fear of pain, shyness, religious and traditional thoughts, women’s sexual role in society, and previous information and experience also contribute to people’s anxiety levels with regard to gynecologic examination.

Objectives:

We aimed to analyze the effect of specific information about gynecologic examination on anxiety levels of women applying to gynecology clinics.

Materials and Methods:

In this randomized prospective study, the women applying for a gynecological examination were randomly allocated into control, intervention 1, and intervention 2 groups. Power analysis indicated that in order to achieve a one-point decrease from the previous anxiety score of 43.85 ± 5.41 at one side alpha 0.05 with a power of 80%, at least 79 women were needed in each group. Four medical school students interviewed 75 women (25 in control, 25 in intervention 1, and 25 in intervention 2). The data were collected using the demographic, social, and economic data form, and the Turkish version of the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI). The women in the intervention 1 and 2 groups were instructed to read a paper that contained brief information about the gynecological examination procedure and the profits obtained from forests, respectively. All participants, including the women in the control group, filled the STAI by themselves. The three groups were compared appropriately.

Results:

The demographics pertaining to age, gravidity and parity, miscarriage, induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, offspring number, place of residence, working status, education level and previous experience of gynecological examination did not differ among the groups (P > 0.05). According to the STAI scores, all groups had mild state (control: 40.20 ± 10.53, intervention 1: 42.00 ± 11.98, and intervention 2: 39.53 ± 10.32) and severe continuous (control: 46.78 ± 8.65, Intervention 1: 47.25 ± 9.57, and intervention 2: 46.60 ± 9.72) anxiety levels. However, both state and continuous anxiety scores were not significantly different in all groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

Providing brief written information about the gynecological examination procedure and the clinic’s working discipline is not sufficient to lower the anxiety of women applying for a gynecological examination.

Sedation for gastroscopy: Is it an adequately understood and informed choice?

INTRODUCTION

Sedation uptake rates for oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) vary greatly. Issues concerning adequate information and consent have been raised. Additionally, patient comprehension of sedation options is inconsistent.

METHODS

A closed ended questionnaire was created and delivered to assess patient understanding regarding sedation prior to OGD. The questionnaire was based on British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines.

RESULTS

One hundred and eleven patients were recruited. 90 % of the sedated and 73 % of the unsedated patients were satisfied with their respective decisions (OR 0.283, *p = 0.01). 65 % were unaware of basic differences between conscious sedation and general anesthesia, and 37 % were unaware that driving is permitted after having throat spray alone. The most informed of the age groups had the lowest uptake of sedation and the least informed had the highest uptake.

CONCLUSION

The decision to undergo gastroscopy with or without sedation is not a sufficiently informed one. This study highlights the need for the widespread dissemination of good quality information to inform patients better regarding sedation prior to OGD.

Effect of family presence on pain and anxiety during invasive nursing procedures in an emergency department: A randomized controlled experimental study

BACKGROUND

Patients generally prefer to have their family present during medical or nursing interventions. Family presence is assumed to reduce anxiety, especially during painful interventions.

AIM

This study employed a randomized controlled experimental design to determine the effects of family presence on pain and anxiety during invasive nursing procedures.

METHOD

The study population consisted of patients hospitalized in the observation unit of the internal medicine section in the emergency department of a university hospital. The sample comprised 138 patients assigned into the experimental and control groups by drawing lots. The invasive nursing procedure was carried out in the presence of family members, for members of the experimental group, and without family members, for members of the control group. Thus, the effects of family presence on pain and anxiety during the administration of an invasive nursing procedure to patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

The results showed that members of the experimental and control groups did not differ with respect to the pain and state anxiety scores during the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Family presence does not influence the participants' pain and anxiety during an invasive nursing procedure. Thus, the decision regarding family presence during such procedures should be based on patient preference.

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.

Evaluation of patient satisfaction of an outpatient gastroscopy service in an Asian tertiary care hospital

Background

There are limited published studies on patient satisfaction towards endoscopy from Asian countries. Different methods of evaluation of patient satisfaction may yield different results and there is currently no study to compare results of on-site versus phone-back interviews.

Method

On-site followed by phone-back interviews were carried out on consecutive patients attending the outpatient gastroscopy service of University of Malaya Medical Centre between July 2010 and January 2011 using the modified Group Health Association of America-9 (mGHAA-9) questionnaire. The question on technical skill of endoscopist was replaced with a question on patient comfort during endoscopy.

Results

Seven hundred patients were interviewed. Waiting times for appointment and on gastroscopy day, and discomfort during procedure accounted for over 90% of unfavorable responses. Favorable response diminished to undesirable level when waiting times for appointment and on gastroscopy day exceeded 1 month and 1 hour, respectively. Satisfaction scores were higher for waiting time for appointment but lower for personal manner of nurses/staff and explanation given during phone-back interview. There was no significant difference in satisfaction scores for other questions, including overall rating between the two methods.

Conclusion

Waiting times and discomfort during procedure were main causes for patient dissatisfaction. Phone-back interview may result in different scores for some items compared with on-site interview and should be taken into account when comparing results using the different methods.

The sedation increases the acceptance of repeat colonoscopies

AIM

The aim of this research was to assess how the use of sedation during colonoscopy influences patient anxiety, fear, satisfaction, and acceptance of repeat examinations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective case-control study quantifying the anxiety and fears of patients appointed for colonoscopy, comparing patients who had undergone previous colonoscopies with sedation (cases) with patients who had undergone previous colonoscopies without sedation and patients who had never had a colonoscopy before (controls). Following the examination, patients answered a satisfaction survey and were asked whether they would be willing to undergo future colonoscopies.

RESULTS

The study included 2016 patients (average age 50.05 ± 14.44 years; 47% men). Of these, 1270 patients (63%) were undergoing colonoscopy for the first time and 746 (37%) had undergone the procedure before; in the latter group, 313 patients (42%) had been provided sedation, whereas 433 (58%) had not. Patients who had been sedated for prior colonoscopies assigned significantly lower scores than patients who had undergone previous colonoscopies without sedation and those undergoing the procedure for the first time both in the anxiety survey (3.3 ± 2.5 vs. 7.5 ± 2.8 vs. 10.3 ± 3.5; P<0.01) and in the fears survey (7.1 ± 3.0 vs. 14 ± 2.8 vs. 20.3 ± 4.5; P<0.01). Satisfaction survey scores were significantly higher among sedated patients than among nonsedated patients (22.8 ± 2.7 vs. 18.6 ± 2.3). The percentage of sedated patients who would be willing to undergo colonoscopy again was significantly higher than that of nonsedated patients (70 vs. 25%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Sedation reduces the anxiety and fear of undergoing a repeat colonoscopy and improves both patient satisfaction and the acceptability of future procedures.

Pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation: a 2010 nationwide survey in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient data on pediatric endoscopic sedation practices worldwide. This study aimed to assess nationwide data on the current pediatric endoscopic sedation practices in Taiwan.

METHODS

Members of the Taiwan Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition in 2010 were asked to participate in an 18-item questionnaire survey regarding current sedation practices for diagnostic esophagogastric-duodenoscopy (EGD).

RESULTS

A total of 22 of 32 questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 68.8%. A majority (86.4%) of the respondents practiced in a medical center hospital setting, and 72.7% preferred sedation during EGD. The proportions of respondents applying sedative methods in cases aged < 1, 1∼12, and > 12 years old were 85.7%, 100%, and 23.7% respectively. Ketamine (27.8%) and midazolam with meperidine (22.2%) were the most commonly applied sedation agents, while the percentage of respondents using regimens that included propofol was 11.2%. Comparing complications between EGD with and without sedation, only hypoxia (Wilcoxon statistics=347.00, p=0.003) was significantly more common in sedated patients. The endoscopists' satisfaction rating was greater among respondents using sedation compared to those without (visual analog scale 9 vs. 7; p=0.0001).

CONCLUSION

A majority of pediatric EGD in Taiwan was performed under sedation and applied more often to younger children. Endoscopists were more satisfied during EGD when practicing sedation. This survey should help formulate updated practice guidelines and policies regarding endoscopic sedation.

Posterior lingual lidocaine: A novel method to improve tolerance in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the effect of posterior lingual lidocaine swab on patient tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the ease of performance of the procedure, and to determine if such use will reduce the need for intravenous sedation.

METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy in a tertiary care medical center were randomized to either lidocaine swab or spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were given as needed during the procedure.

RESULTS: Patients in the lidocaine swab group (SWG) tolerated the procedure better than those in the spray group (SPG) with a median tolerability score of 2 (1, 4) compared to 4 (2, 5) (P < 0.01). The endoscopists encountered less difficulty performing the procedures in the SWG with lower median difficulty scores of 1 (1, 5) compared to 4 (1, 5) in the SPG (P < 0.01). In addition, the need for intravenous sedation was also lower in the SWG compared to the SPG with fewer patients requiring intravenous sedation (13/40 patients vs 38/40 patients, respectively, P < 0.01). The patients in the SWG were more satisfied with the mode of local anesthesia they received as compared to the SPG. In addition, the endoscopists were happier with the use of lidocaine swab.

CONCLUSION: The use of a posterior lingual lidocaine swab in esophagogastroduodenoscopy improves patient comfort and tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction and decreases the need for intravenous sedation.

Panic Attack during Elective Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy (CS) can evoke anxiety, embarrassment, and discomfort. These concerns can culminate in panic attacks, which may traumatize patients and significantly decrease their compliance to the procedure. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between preendoscopic anxiety and the possibility of a panic attack during an elective gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGE). Methods. The study population comprised of 79 Greek outpatients. The examination was carried out without the use of conscious sedation. Patients' anxiety levels were assessed before the procedure using the Greek version of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y). Results. Seventy-nine patients were enrolled: 45 EGD and 34 CS. Females had higher state and trait anxiety levels than males (48.14 ± 7.94 versus 44.17 ± 7.43, P < 0.05; and 43.68 ± 6.95 versus 39.86 ± 7.46, P < 0.05). Patients who experienced panic attack had significantly higher levels of both trait and state anxiety, compared to those who were panic-free. There was no significant relationship between panic attacks and sex or type of procedure. Conclusions. Patients who experience panic attacks during endoscopic procedures appear to have significantly higher anxiety levels before the procedure. Administering the STAI questionnaire prior to the endoscopy seems to be a useful screening method for vulnerable patients.

Assessment of participant satisfaction with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in South Korea

AIM: To measure the perceived satisfaction with gastric cancer screening as part of the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) in South Korea.

METHODS: Data were derived from the participants in a satisfaction survey of the Quality Evaluation of National Cancer Screening in 2009. This is a population-based nationwide telephone survey of participants who were screened by the NCSP between May and October 2009. This study included 4412 participants who provided full sets of data and who had upper endoscopies for the purpose of gastric cancer screening.

RESULTS: The negative appraisal percentages for each of the seven questions were as follows: explanation in preparation for the upper endoscopy, 12.3%; explanation about the process and procedure of the upper endoscopy, 13.8%; explanation about any pain or discomfort related to the upper endoscopy, 27.5%; level of pain during the procedure, 30.3%; physical environment, 16.2%; manner of the staff, 11.2%, and privacy protection, 8.8%.

CONCLUSION: The critical issues identified by the Pareto analysis include the adequacy of the explanation about any pain or discomfort associated with the upper endoscopy and the level of pain experienced during the procedure.

The effect of sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIM

We aimed to study whether sedation reduces discomfort during endoscopy and a comparison of longer-acting diazepam with shorter-acting midazolam.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was conducted at the Department of Medicine at Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, and was completed over a period of 6 months. The patients were randomized to receive either placebo or sedation with midazolam or diazepam before endoscopy. The endoscopist and the observer recording patient's/physician's responses were blinded to the drugs administered. Two hundred and fifty two consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were recruited. The patient's discomfort and the physician's comfort during the procedure were recorded on a visual analogue scale rated from 1-10 with-in 10 minutes of the procedure by an independent observer. The Patient's discomfort ratings were further divided into 3 groups, comfortable (score, 1-3), satisfactory (score, 4-7) and uncomfortable (a score of >7). Similarly the physician's ease of performing the procedure was also recorded on the same scale. This was again divided into 3 groups: easy (score, 1-3), satisfactory (score, 4-7) and difficult (a score of >7).

RESULTS

Out of the total of 252 patients, 82 patients received no sedation (group I), 85 received diazepam (group II) and 85 received midazolam (group III). There was no statistical difference in the discomfort experienced by the patients during endoscopy when sedation was used (P=0.0754). Out of 252 patients, 49 underwent endoscopic procedures. Nineteen patients were included in group I, 18 in group II and 12 in group III. Only 10 (20%) patients undergoing endoscopic procedures complained of significant discomfort, but there was no difference in the ones undergoing interventions with or without sedation (P=0.854). The physicians were more comfortable in performing endoscopic procedure in sedated patients, however, the difference between patients in group II and group III was not statistically significant (P=0.0461). Both diazepam and midazolam fared equally well in increasing physician's comfort (P=0.617).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the patient's discomfort with regard to the sedative used (midazolam or diazepam). Although endoscopy was easy or satisfactory in the majority of patients in the unsedated as well as the sedated groups, more often the endoscopist found it difficult to do endoscopy on the unsedated patients.

Patients' satisfaction: an important factor in quality control of gastroscopies

OBJECTIVE

Although oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (OGDs) are associated with few medical complications, substantial pre-procedural anxiety and discomfort during the procedure have been reported. The aims of the present study were to evaluate OGD-related discomfort assessed by the patient and to identify the possibilities for improvement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All outpatients undergoing OGDs at a single centre during 2004 were eligible for the study. On site, the endoscopy team completed a questionnaire on age of patients, gender and the use of sedation/anaesthesia. After the examination, the patients were given a questionnaire focusing on discomfort during and after the examination. The questionnaire was to be completed at home the following day and returned in a prepaid envelope.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1283 examinations were registered, giving 92% coverage of OGDs. The patient response rate was 80%. Patients' mean age was 55 years, and 45% were men. The sedation rate was 7.3%. None or only slight discomfort was experienced by 68% of the patients and severe discomfort by 14%. In patients, the odds ratio (OR) for experiencing moderate or severe discomfort decreased with increasing age (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.97, p < 0.001). There were significant differences in patient discomfort depending on the level of experience of the endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients reported no or only slight discomfort during the examination, but as many as 32% did not. Increased use of sedation in selected patients is recommended. Our quality assurance program included a limited number of variables for registration, with satisfactory compliance by endoscopists and patients.

Conscious sedation for patients undergoing enteroclysis: comparing the safety and patient-reported effectiveness of two protocols

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and patient-reported effectiveness of two regimens for conscious sedation during enteroclysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed two groups of outpatients and retrospectively reviewed procedure records for conscious sedation and complications. Patients were divided into Group One (received sedative/amnesic diazepam), and Group Two, (received amnesic/sedative, midazolam and analgesic fentanyl).

RESULTS

All enteroclyses were successfully completed; there were no hospital admissions due to complications. In Group One (n=106), mean dose of diazepam was 12.7 mg. 25% had oxygen desaturation (n=25), and post-procedure vomiting without aspiration (n=1). 56% of outpatients completed phone surveys, and 68% recalled procedural discomfort. In Group Two (n=45), mean doses were 3.9 mg midazolam and 108 mcg fentanyl. 31% had desaturation (n=13), and post-procedure vomiting without aspiration (n=1). 87% had only a vague recall of the procedure or of any discomfort.

CONCLUSION

A combination of amnesic and fentanyl prevented the recall of discomfort of nasoenteric intubation and infusion in most patients who had enteroclysis compared to diazepam. Most of the patients would undergo the procedure again, if needed.

Lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia in upper GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Conscious sedation is usually achieved during EGD by a combination of intravenous benzodiazepines and opiates; however, these have potential serious adverse effects. The addition of topical oropharyngeal anesthetics such as lidocaine may be useful. Recent data suggest that the administration of topical lidocaine by means of a lollipop is effective for endotracheal intubation and bronchoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia for EGD and to determine whether its use reduces the need for intravenous sedatives and analgesics.

DESIGN

Single-blinded, randomized, prospective study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

50 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to either lidocaine lollipop or lidocaine spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were administered during the procedure as needed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The success and safety of local anesthesia by lidocaine lollipop in addition to the need for intravenous sedation.

RESULTS

Patients were equally randomized between the lollipop and the spray groups. The lollipop group had less gag reflex, accommodated scope introduction more, and tolerated the procedure better. Thirty-two percent of patients receiving the lollipop required sedation compared with 96% of patients in the spray group (P < .001). The majority in the lollipop group were satisfied with their mode of anesthesia compared with the spray group.

CONCLUSIONS

Lidocaine lollipop is a promising form of local oropharyngeal anesthesia for EGD. Its use resulted in sparing the use of intravenous sedation. It is well tolerated and safe and may be particularly important in the elderly, patients with comorbidities, and office-based endoscopy.

Evaluation of patient satisfaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Patient satisfaction questionnaires are a useful method for detecting opportunities for improvement on the basis of patient opinion. The aim of this study was to identify by means of a satisfaction questionnaire the main reasons for dissatisfaction in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Five hundred and thirty-seven patients (age 49+/-15 years, 53% women) who attended a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit were interviewed 3 weeks after undergoing upper endoscopy or colonoscopy, using a previously translated and validated GHAA-9 questionnaire modified for use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In each case, the overall score median and the percentage of patients who gave negative (poor or fair) appraisals on each of the seven main questions were estimated. These data were used to perform a Pareto analysis.

RESULTS

The overall questionnaire score median was 29 (interquartiles 25 and 75 over 26 and 32, respectively). Negative appraisal percentages for each of the seven questions were: waiting time until the appointment, 9.3%; waiting time on the day of examination, 3.5%; explanations, 3.9%; personal manner of staff, 0.5%; personal manner of the physician, 0.6%; discomfort, 3.5%; overall rating, 1.9%. The vital few found by Pareto analysis were questions regarding waiting time for appointment and adequacy of explanations regarding procedure. These questions accounted for 61% of the total number of problems encountered by patients.

CONCLUSION

Questionnaires on satisfaction or quality perceived by patients allow the most frequent causes for dissatisfaction to be identified. The main problems patients encountered were waiting time until the appointment and explanations.

The comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam used for sedation of patients during upper endoscopy: A prospective, randomized study

The aim of the present prospective, randomized study was to investigate and compare the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in providing sedation for gastroscopy. A total of 50 adult patients (25 patients receiving dexmedetomidine and 25 patients receiving midazolam), 18 to 60 years of age, and rated I and II on the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system were included. A brief questionnaire was used to collect demographic data; patients were asked to rate anxiety, satisfaction with care to date and expected discomfort on a visual analogue scale. The following parameters were measured continuously and recorded every minute: heart rate, mean arterial pressure, hemoglobin oxygen saturation and respiratory rate. The two groups were similar with regard to age, body mass index, sex, education, duration of endoscopy, and ethanol or tobacco use. After the procedure, full recovery time, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate and hemoglobin oxygen saturation levels were similar in both groups. Both groups also had low levels of perceived procedural gagging, discomfort and anxiety scores (P > 0.05), and high satisfaction levels (90.1+/-3.0 for dexmedetomidine versus 84.9+/-4.5 for midazolam; P > 0.05). Retching and endoscopist satisfaction were significantly different in patients receiving dexmedetomidine versus those receiving midazolam (88.8+/-6.5 versus 73.5+/-16.4, P < 0.05; and 20.6+/-4.4 versus 45.2+/-6.0; P < 0.001). In the midazolam group, the number of patients who had adverse effects was higher than the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0.05). As a result, dexmedetomidine performed as effectively and safely as midazolam when used as a sedative in upper gastroscopy; it was superior to midazolam with regard to retching, rate of side effects and endoscopist satisfaction. It was concluded that dexmedetomidine may be a good alternative to midazolam to sedate patients for upper endoscopy.

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.

The effect of an information brochure on patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to test the potential beneficial effects of an information brochure on undergoing a gastrointestinal endoscopy for the first time. The information provided was based on self-regulation theory, and patients could restrict themselves to reading the summary only.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to an experimental group receiving the brochure at least 1 day before the gastroscopy (N=47), or to a control group not receiving the brochure (N=48).

RESULTS

The results show that all experimental subjects, except one, fully read the brochure. Those receiving the brochure experienced less anxiety before the gastroscopy and, afterwards, they reported greater satisfaction with the preparation for it. With regard to coping style there were some small moderating effects into the direction expected: low blunters (those not seeking distraction under impending threat) as compared to high blunters showed extra reduced anxiety after reading the brochure. They also tended to read the brochure more often. High monitors (those seeking information under impending threat) receiving the brochure showed reduced anxiety during the gastroscopy as compared to low monitors (tendency).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that providing patients with the developed brochure constitutes an efficient, beneficial intervention.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The brochure could easily be implemented in standard practice without the necessity to take the patient's coping style into account.

Evaluation of topical pharyngeal anaesthesia by benzocaine lozenge for upper endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Among the randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of pharyngeal anaesthesia only some suggest benefit. Spray is irritating for some people and leaves bitter taste in the throat. We hypothesized that delivering the local anaesthetic as a sucking lozenge would benefit the patients in terms of decreasing anxiety and will improve procedure performance and patient tolerance.

AIM

To determine whether benzocaine/tyrothricin sucking lozenges with conscious sedation is superior to conscious sedation alone, with respect to procedure performance and tolerance in patients undergoing upper endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-four adult patients undergoing upper endoscopy with conscious sedation completed the study. They were randomized to receive sucking lozenge containing benzocaine or placebo before the procedure. Patients were asked to rate prestudy anxiety, tolerance for topical pharyngeal anaesthesia, comfort during endoscopy, degree of difficulty of intubation, postprocedure throat discomfort and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations using a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Endoscopists were asked to estimate the ease of oesophageal intubation and procedure performance.

RESULTS

No significant statistical differences regarding all the points studied were found between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical pharyngeal anaesthesia with benzocaine/tyrothricin lozenges with conscious sedation has no advantages over conscious sedation alone in patients undergoing upper endoscopy.