Prospective randomized trial of transnasal versus peroral endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope in unsedated patients.

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the acceptance and tolerance of transnasal and peroral esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) using an ultrathin videoendoscope in unsedated patients.

METHODS

A total of 124 patients referred for diagnostic endoscopy were assigned randomly to have an unsedated transnasal EGD (n = 64) or peroral EGD (n = 60) with local anesthesia. An ultrathin videoendoscope with a diameter of 5.9 mm was used in this study. A questionnaire for tolerance was completed by the patient (a validated 0-10 scale where '0' represents no discomfort/well tolerated and '10' represents severe discomfort/poorly tolerated).

RESULTS

Of the 64 transnasal EGD patients, 60 patients (94%) had a complete examination. Four transnasal EGD examinations failed for anatomical reasons; all four patients were successfully examined when switched to the peroral EGD. All 60 peroral EGD patients had a complete examination. Between the transnasal and peroral groups, there was a statistically significant difference in scores for discomfort during local anesthesia (1.5 +/- 0.2 vs 2.6 +/- 0.3, P = 0.003), discomfort during insertion (2.3 +/- 0.3 vs 4.3 +/- 0.3, P = 0.001), and overall tolerance during procedure (1.6 +/- 0.2 vs 3.8 +/- 0.2, P = 0.001). In all, 95% of transnasal EGD patients and 75% of peroral EGD patients (P = 0.002) were willing to undergo the same procedure in the future. Four patients in the transnasal EGD group experienced mild epistaxis.

CONCLUSION

For unsedated endoscopy using an ultrathin videoendoscope, transnasal EGD is well tolerated and considerably reduces patient discomfort compared with peroral EGD.