Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2003
Unsedated transnasal EGD in daily practice: results with 1100 consecutive patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dumortier Jérôme, Napoleon Bertrand, Hedelius Franck, Pellissier Pierre-Edouard, Leprince Eric, Pujol Bertrand, Ponchon Thierry
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: EGD can be performed transnasally in adults by using small-diameter endoscopes. A large prospective study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and tolerance of diagnostic transnasal EGD in daily practice.
METHODS: Unsedated transnasal EGD was attempted in 1100 consecutive patients, in 3 different institutions, by using a 5.9-mm or a 5.3-mm diameter endoscope. The operator determined whether the procedure was successful or unsuccessful, the reason for failures, and any side effects. The influence of gender, age, endoscope diameter, and type of topical anesthesia on the success or failure of the procedure was evaluated. Patients who previously had undergone peroral EGD were queried as to which procedure they preferred.
RESULTS: Transnasal EGD was feasible in 93.9% of the patients. The causes of failure were as follows: unsuccessful transnasal insertion (62.7%), patient refusal (19.4%), and nasal pain (17.9%). Female gender, young age (< or =35 years), and larger-endoscope diameter were significant predictive factors for procedure failure. Side effects included the following: epistaxis (2.3%), nasal pain (1.6%), and vaso-vagal reaction (0.3%). A majority (91%) of the patients who previously had undergone unsedated peroral EGD with a standard 9.8-mm diameter endoscope preferred transnasal EGD with a small-diameter endoscope.
CONCLUSIONS: Transnasal EGD is feasible in daily endoscopic practice and is preferred by patients. Side effects are rare.
METHODS: Unsedated transnasal EGD was attempted in 1100 consecutive patients, in 3 different institutions, by using a 5.9-mm or a 5.3-mm diameter endoscope. The operator determined whether the procedure was successful or unsuccessful, the reason for failures, and any side effects. The influence of gender, age, endoscope diameter, and type of topical anesthesia on the success or failure of the procedure was evaluated. Patients who previously had undergone peroral EGD were queried as to which procedure they preferred.
RESULTS: Transnasal EGD was feasible in 93.9% of the patients. The causes of failure were as follows: unsuccessful transnasal insertion (62.7%), patient refusal (19.4%), and nasal pain (17.9%). Female gender, young age (< or =35 years), and larger-endoscope diameter were significant predictive factors for procedure failure. Side effects included the following: epistaxis (2.3%), nasal pain (1.6%), and vaso-vagal reaction (0.3%). A majority (91%) of the patients who previously had undergone unsedated peroral EGD with a standard 9.8-mm diameter endoscope preferred transnasal EGD with a small-diameter endoscope.
CONCLUSIONS: Transnasal EGD is feasible in daily endoscopic practice and is preferred by patients. Side effects are rare.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnalysis of VarianceChi-Square DistributionCohort StudiesProcedural SedationDigestive System DiseasesEndoscopesEndoscopy, Digestive SystemEquipment DesignEquipment SafetyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNasal CavityPain MeasurementPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ComplianceProbabilityRisk AssessmentSensitivity and Specificity