title: A randomized trial of unsedated transnasal small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) versus peroral small-caliber EGD versus conventional EGD.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has advantages over sedated EGD - e. g., prevention of side effects related to sedation, less patient monitoring, and less expense. This study compared the feasibility and tolerance of transnasal small-caliber (TSC-EGD) and peroral small-caliber EGD (PSC-EGD) with conventional EGD (C-EGD).
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 150 patients referred for diagnostic EGD were randomly allocated to undergo either TSC-EGD, PSC-EGD, or C-EGD under local anesthesia if they agreed to receive sedation only on demand or in case of intolerance. Patients, endoscopists, and nurses completed questionnaires on the tolerability and quality of the examinations using a visual analogue scale (VAS), ranging from 1 (best/nonexistent) to 10 (worst/unbearable) after EGD. Small-caliber EGD and C-EGD were performed with 5.9-mm and 9.8-mm video endoscopes (Olympus), respectively.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The patients' age, sex, experience with EGD, and anxiety before EGD did not differ significantly between the three groups, each consisting of 50 patients. TSC-EGD failed in four of the 50 patients (8 %) because of a narrow nasal tract; they underwent PSC-EGD. Complete examinations, including the second part of the duodenum and biopsy sampling, were possible in all patients. Patients examined with an ultrathin instrument required sedation significantly less often (TSC-EGD 6 %, PSC-EGD 18 %, C-EGD 44 %; P < 0.01) and consequently spent less time in the recovery room. TSC-EGD was initially more painful on insertion, but caused less gagging (P<0.01) than peroral EGD during the whole procedure. TSC-EGD caused mild epistaxis in one case.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  TSC-EGD was carried out safely and completely in 92 % of the patients. TSC-EGD and PSC-EGD were better tolerated and required sedation less often than conventional EGD. Transnasal diagnostic EGD appears to be a promising alternative to peroral EGD, as it is associated with less gagging and a high level of patient satisfaction.
authors.affiliation: Dept. of Internal Medicine, Evangelisches Krankenhaus, Düsseldorf, Germany. medizinischeKlinik@evk-duesseldorf.de
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Preiss
authors.forename: J P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Charton
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Schumacher
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Neuhaus
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D016292:Procedural Sedation; D004066:Digestive System Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000628:therapy*; D016145:Endoscopy, Digestive System / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000379:methods*; D004867:Equipment Design; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007431:Intraoperative Complications; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009055:Mouth; D009666:Nose; D010146:Pain / Q000209:etiology* / Q000517:prevention & control*; D010147:Pain Measurement; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013997:Time Factors