Risk factors for nasal bleeding in patients undergoing transnasal gastrointestinal endoscopy

Unsedated Transnasal Endoscopy: A Safe, Well-Tolerated and Accurate Alternative to Standard Diagnostic Peroral Endoscopy

Diagnostic unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) has been proven to be a safe and well-tolerated procedure. Although its utilization in the United Kingdom (UK) is increasing, it is currently available in only a few centers. Through consideration of recent studies, we aimed to perform an updated review of the technological advances in uTNE, consider their impact on diagnostic accuracy, and to determine the role of uTNE in the COVID-19 era. Current literature has shown that the diagnostic accuracy of uTNE for identification of esophageal pathology is equivalent to conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (cEGD). Concerns regarding suction and biopsy size have been addressed by the introduction of TNE scopes with working channels of 2.4 mm. Advances in imaging have improved detection of early gastric cancers. The procedure is associated with less cardiac stress and reduced aerosol production; when combined with no need for sedation and improved rates of patient turnover, uTNE is an efficient and safe alternative to cEGD in the COVID-19 era. We conclude that advances in technology have improved the diagnostic accuracy of uTNE to the point where it could be considered the first line diagnostic endoscopic investigation in the majority of patients. It could also play a central role in the recovery of diagnostic endoscopic services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Development of the outer tube through transnasal endoscopy to reduce nasal pain and epistaxis

BackgroundRecently, transnasal endoscopy has become common in Japan. While transnasal endoscopy has many advantages, nasal pain and epistaxis are typical complaints. Consequently, we developed a new tube sheath system for transnasal endoscopy to reduce nasal pain and epistaxis. This new tube sheath system (outer sheath and inner tube) has been named Nasal Slider® and is produced by TOP Corporation, Japan.MethodsA tube sheath longer than the nasal concha is inserted to reduce pain along the nasal turbinate. Since the sheath is left in place, tubes can be passed through the nose multiple times without causing additional pain.A total of 34 consecutive patients (mean age 68.1 years, 22 males and 12 females) who had experienced transnasal endoscopy in the past, would undergo transnasal endoscopy with Nasal Slider® again. After the transnasal endoscopy was completed, patients who gave consent for use of the nasal slider® were interviewed using 3 questionnaires about nasal discomfort, nasal pain and epistaxis.ResultsSince the transnasal endoscope passes inside the sheath, epistaxis can be prevented. Thirty patients for whom trans nasal endoscopy using Nasal Slider® could be carried out. Twenty-seven and 28 patients of all patients used Nasal Slider® expressed feeling less nasal discomfort and pain compared to an examination without Nasal Slider®. No epistaxis was detected in all patients using Nasal Slider®.ConclusionsTo reduce nasal pain and epistaxis, Nasal Slider® for transnasal endoscopy was considerably available. It is currently in use at many hospitals in Japan.

Introduction of Transnasal Endoscopy to a Scottish District General Hospital

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy can be uncomfortable and distressing with many patients opting for conscious sedation over topical local anesthetic spray. Transnasal endoscopy is an alternative and we sought to assess how easily it could be introduced to a district general hospital and how acceptable patients found it. Selected patients requiring diagnostic endoscopy were offered transnasal endoscopy with topical nasal anesthetic by clinicians new to transnasal endoscopy but competent at esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Postal feedback questionnaires were used to assess comfort, distress, recollection of periprocedural consultation, and overall experience (visual analog scale 1-10). A total of 213 transnasal endoscopy procedures were undertaken with 207 completed successfully (97.2%). Two patients (0.9%) had self-limiting epistaxis and no patient required admission. One hundred (47%) questionnaires were returned including 98 from those with completed transnasal endoscopy. Thirty-three (33%) had previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy and 28 (85%) reported a preference for transnasal endoscopy. Fifty-eight patients (59%) found transnasal endoscopy comfortable (visual analog scale >6) with 17 reporting discomfort (visual analog scale <5). Seventeen patients found the procedure distressing (visual analog scale >6) but 70 (73%) did not (visual analog scale <5). Eighty-four patients (85.7%) had clear recollection of their procedure (visual analog scale >6) and overall satisfaction was reported as good (visual analog scale >6) by 94.7%. Transnasal endoscopy can be adopted by clinicians competent with conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy with expectation of high procedure completion rate and low complication rate. Our patients reported high levels of satisfaction with few reporting distress. Perhaps as a consequence, most patients had a clear recollection of their procedure.