Endoscopic perforation in unsedated patients undergoing endoscopy

A New Method for Endoscopic Sampling of Submucosal Tissue in the Gastrointestinal Tract: A Comparison of the Biopsy Forceps and a New Drill Instrument

Background Sampling of submucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract through a flexible endoscope is a well-recognized clinical problem. One technique often used is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration, but it does not provide solid tissue biopsies with preserved architecture for histopathological evaluation. To obtain solid tissue biopsies from submucosal lesions, we have constructed a new endoscopic biopsy tool and compared it in a crossover study with the standard double cupped forceps. Methods Ten patients with endoscopically verified submucosal lesions were sampled. The endoscopist selected the position for the biopsies and used the instrument selected by randomization. After a biopsy was harvested, the endoscopist chose the next site for a biopsy and again used the instrument picked by randomization. A total of 6 biopsies, 3 with the forceps and 3 with the drill instrument, were collected in every patient. Results The drill instrument resulted in larger total size biopsies (mm²; Mann-Whitney U test, P = .048) and larger submucosal part (%) of the biopsies (Mann-Whitney U test, P = .003) than the forceps. Two patients were observed because of chest pain and suspicion of bleeding in 24 hours. No therapeutic measures were necessary to be taken. Conclusion The new drill instrument for flexible endoscopy can safely deliver submucosal tissue samples from submucosal lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (the Shaker technique): an alternative for assessment of supraesophageal complications of gastroesophageal reflux

This article reviews problems associated with sedated endoscopy, and describes the rationale for unsedated endoscopy as an alternative. Costs, tolerability, potential for complications, and general patient and physician acceptance for unsedated endoscopy are reviewed. A new technique, the transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (the Shaker technique), is described.

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy: a safe and less costly alternative

Upper endoscopy is an integral component in the management of upper gastrointestinal disorders, but it is underutilized because of its high cost and potential complications. Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (T-EGD) is a relatively new technique using an ultrathin endoscope. Because it is better tolerated than standard upper endoscopy, it is performed with the patient unsedated, thus avoiding the associated costs and complications of conscious sedation. In this review, the technique of T-EGD and its current experience are discussed. In addition, potential future applications, special considerations, and potential pitfalls are reviewed.

Changing patterns of sedation use for routine out-patient diagnostic gastroscopy between 1989 and 1998

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of sedation trends for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is important for health service planning, particularly in view of rapidly increasing demands on endoscopy services. However, no data are available on sedation trends in Britain over the past 10 years.

AIM

To determine sedation use for routine gastroscopy in a single endoscopy unit between 1989 and 1998.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 9795 consecutive adults (mean age 56 years, range 18-100 years; 4512 females) who had undergone a gastroscopy between 1989 and 1998. Clinical, pharmacological and endoscopic data were retrieved from a computerized database.

RESULTS

Over the 10-year study period, the sedation rate remained constant for patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopy (P=0.99) and those undergoing in-patient diagnostic examinations (P=0.63). In contrast, the sedation rate for out-patient diagnostic endoscopy decreased by 54%, from a high of 70% in 1990 to 32% in 1998 (P < 0.0001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the decline in sedation use was greater in females (P < 0.0001) than males and in procedures performed by non-consultant compared to consultant staff (P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

If our results form part of a national trend, they will have important implications for cardiopulmonary monitoring strategies, recovery room practices and for complication rates due to the use of sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.