Unsedated transnasal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy has favorable diagnostic effectiveness, cardiopulmonary safety, and patient satisfaction compared with conventional or sedated endoscopy.

BACKGROUND

To assess the diagnostic effectiveness, cardiopulmonary safety, and patient comfort of transnasal endoscopy (TNE), compared with conventional endoscopy (CES) and sedated endoscopy (SES), and to compare procedural risks and patient satisfaction/preference.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, and controlled protocol, eligible patients (n = 397) in an outpatient clinic were randomized to CES (n = 133), SES (n = 134), or unsedated TNE (n = 130) due to upper gastrointestinal (GI) complaints. Patients were continuously monitored for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP), pulse rate (PR), and SpO(2) throughout the endoscopy. All subjects (n = 392) completing their assigned endoscopy were asked to evaluate endoscopy satisfaction, pain, and nausea/vomiting on visual analog scales. Patient preference for the assigned endoscopy was assessed against previous endoscopy experience or by willingness to repeat the assigned endoscopy.

RESULTS

Endoscopic outcomes for the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum were comparable among the three groups. SBP/DBP and PR were more stable in patients undergoing TNE than in those undergoing CES or SES, while SpO(2) remained stable and above 95% among all three groups. Patients were more satisfied with TNE than with CES and experienced less pain and nausea/vomiting. Patients exhibited a high preference for SES, whereas 67.6% of patients who previously underwent SES and were randomly assigned to TNE were willing to undergo TNE again.

CONCLUSIONS

TNE has comparable diagnostic effectiveness to CES and SES, but is less stressful on cardiopulmonary function, indicating that TNE is a more comfortable, preferred, and cost-effective endoscopic technique than CES and SES.