Unsedated peroral endoscopy with a video ultrathin endoscope: patient acceptance, tolerance, and diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess patient tolerance of unsedated routine upper endoscopy using a 6-mm ultrathin (UT) video endoscope (Olympus XGIF-N200H) and to compare its optical quality to a standard endoscope (Olympus GIF100).


METHODS
A total of 62 outpatients were recruited for unsedated UT endoscopy using topical spray followed by sedated endoscopy using a standard endoscope. After unsedated endoscopy, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing tolerance. When both endoscopies were completed, the endoscopist recorded findings and optical quality of the UT.


RESULTS
Of 62 patients, 19 refused unsedated endoscopy because of anxiety (12), fear of gagging (3), and unwillingness to be study patients (4).
Of 43 patients, 37 (86%) had a complete, unsedated UT exam (five patients did not have a GIF100 exam). During insertion, 60% of the patients reported none/mild discomfort, whereas, during the remainder of the examination, 73% had none/mild discomfort. Of 37 patients, 30 (81%) were willing to undergo future unsedated endoscopy with the UT and they tolerated UT endoscopy better than the patients who were unwilling (none/mild discomfort: 83% vs 29%). Of 43 patients, six (14%) failed UT endoscopy because of severe gagging (all were male, mean age 44 yr). OPTICS: Optical quality was rated as good 84%, 65%, and 78% of the time in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum, respectively. Optical quality was diminished by excessive fluid and tenacious secretions. The UT missed five of 59 lesions: three hiatal hernias and two gastric erosions.


CONCLUSIONS
A total of 69% of outpatients agreed to undergo peroral unsedated endoscopy with a UT endoscope. A total of 86% of patients tolerated a complete unsedated examination, and 81% of these were willing to undergo future unsedated examinations. Diagnostic accuracy of this ultrathin video endoscope was good, with 92% of lesions discovered when compared with a standard instrument.
Department of Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland 97210, USA.
A
A
Zaman
R
R
Hapke
G
G
Sahagun
R M
RM
Katon
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D016292:Procedural Sedation; D016145:Endoscopy, Digestive System / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010342:Patient Acceptance of Health Care / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014741:Video Recording / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data