title: A study comparing tolerability, satisfaction and acceptance of three different techniques for esophageal endoscopy: sedated conventional, unsedated peroral ultra thin, and esophageal capsule.
abstract: Three methods of esophagoscopy are available until now: sedated conventional endoscopy, unsedated ultrathin endoscopy, and esophageal capsule endoscopy. The three methods carry comparable diagnostic accuracy and different complication rates. Although all of them have been found well accepted from patients, no comparative study comprising the three techniques has been published. The aim of this study was to compare the three methods of esophagoscopy regarding tolerability, satisfaction, and acceptance. Twenty patients with large esophageal varices and 10 with gastroesophageal reflux disease were prospectively included. All patients underwent consecutively sedated conventional endoscopy, unsedated ultrathin endoscopy, and esophageal capsule endoscopy. After each procedure, patients completed a seven-item questionnaire. The total positive attitude of patients toward all methods was high. However, statistical analysis revealed the following differences in favor of esophageal capsule endoscopy: (i) total positive attitude has been found higher (chi(2)= 18.2, df = 2, P= 0.00), (ii) less patients felt pain (chi(2)= 6.9, df = 2, P= 0.03) and discomfort (chi(2)= 22.1, df = 2, P= 0.00), (iii) less patients experienced difficulty (chi(2)= 13.7, df = 2, P= 0.01), and (iv) more patients were willing to undergo esophageal capsule endoscopy in the future (chi(2)= 12.1, df = 2, P= 0.002). Esophageal capsule endoscopy was characterized by a more positive general attitude and caused less pain and discomfort. Sedated conventional endoscopy has been found more difficult. More patients would repeat esophageal capsule endoscopy in the future. Patients' total position for all three available techniques for esophageal endoscopy was excellent and renders the observed advantage of esophageal capsule endoscopy over both sedated conventional and unsedated ultrathin endoscopy a statistical finding without a real clinical benefit.
authors.affiliation: Department of Gastroenterology, General, Faculty of Nursing, Athens University, General Hospital of Athens Helena Venizelou, Athens, Greece.
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Nakos
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Karagiannis
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Ballas
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Galanis
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Alevizopoulos
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Nakos
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Mavrogiannis
mesh_terms: D001294:Attitude to Health; D053705:Capsule Endoscopes; D053704:Capsule Endoscopy / Q000523:psychology; D016292:Procedural Sedation; D004867:Equipment Design; D004932:Esophageal and Gastric Varices / Q000175:diagnosis; D020701:Esophagoscopes; D004945:Esophagoscopy / Q000379:methods* / Q000523:psychology; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005764:Gastroesophageal Reflux / Q000175:diagnosis; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010146:Pain / Q000209:etiology; D010147:Pain Measurement; D010342:Patient Acceptance of Health Care; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011446:Prospective Studies