Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 71, Issue 1 , Pages 11-20, January 2010

Gauze pledgetting versus endoscopic-guided aerosolized spray for nasal anesthesia before transnasal EGD: a prospective, randomized study

  • Chi-Tan Hu, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Chi-Tan Hu, MD, PhD, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi Hospital and Tzu Chi University, No 707, Section 3, Chung Yang Road, Hualien (970), Taiwan.

Current affiliation: Division of Gastroenterology and Research Centre for Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital and Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan

Received 14 January 2009; accepted 14 June 2009. published online 14 September 2009.

Hualien, Taiwan

Background

Methods and efficacy of nasal anesthesia before ultrathin transnasal EGD (UT-EGD) are crucial for patient tolerance.

Objective

To compare patient tolerance, safety, and adverse events between cotton-tipped applicator primed gauze pledgetting (CTGP) and endoscopic-guided aerosolized spray (EGAS) methods of nasal anesthesia.

Design

We performed a prospective, randomized-controlled trial to compare procedural discomforts, optical quality, total procedure time, and adverse events between the CTGP and EGAS methods.

Setting

A large, tertiary referral hospital in Taiwan.

Patients

A total of 240 consecutive patients with epigastric discomfort were included in the study.

Intervention

The author performed all standardized nasal anesthesia and UT-EGD using a 5.9-mm diameter transnasal endoscope.

Main Outcome Measurements

Technical success, patient tolerability profiles, optical quality, total procedure time, and adverse events.

Results

There was no statistical difference in insertion failure rates between the 2 methods (CTGP 0% vs EGAS 5%, P = .07). When compared with the EGAS method, CTGP reduced pain during insertions through the inferior nasal meatus (3.4 ± 0.5 vs 3.2 ± 0.4, P = .006), middle nasal meatus (4.0 ± 0.7 vs 3.4 ± 0.5, P = .002), and upper esophageal sphincter (2.9 ± 0.7 vs 2.6 ± 0.8, P = .005). CTGP elicited less unpleasant taste, fewer gagging episodes, and less throat pain after examination. Both methods had similar safe hemodynamic profiles, low epistaxis rates (0% vs 2%, P = .46), and comparable visual capacity and procedure time. Although similar proportions of patients in both groups would like to receive the same procedure the next time, CTGP had a higher overall tolerance.

Conclusion

Compared with the EGAS method, CTGP achieved a better tolerability profile and elicited less bad taste, fewer gagging episodes, and less throat pain after UT-EGD in Taiwanese patients.

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index, CTGP, cotton-tipped applicator primed gauze pledgetting, CTNA, cotton-tipped applicator nasal anesthesia, EGAS, endoscopic-guided aerosolized spray, INM, inferior nasal meatus, INT, inferior nasal turbinate, MNM, middle nasal meatus, MNT, middle nasal turbinate, P-EGD, peroral EGD, UT-EGD, ultrathin transnasal EGD, VAS, visual analogue scale

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 DISCLOSURE: The author disclosed financial relationships relevant to this publication: Fujinon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan supplied the Fujinon super-slim transnasal endoscope EG-530N affiliated with Fujinon super-CCD, which were used for ultrathin endoscopic procedures in this study. This author was supported by grant TCCSP95-09 from Buddhist Tzu Chi Intramural Research Plan.

 If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr. Hu at chitan.hu@msa.hinet.net or chitanhu@tzuchi.com.tw.

PII: S0016-5107(09)02116-6

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.06.016

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 71, Issue 1 , Pages 11-20, January 2010