Unsedated small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD): less expensive and less time-consuming than conventional EGD

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.

Transnasal endoscopy: no gagging no panic!

BACKGROUND

Transnasal endoscopy (TNE) is performed with an ultrathin scope via the nasal passages and is increasingly used. This review covers the technical characteristics, tolerability, safety and acceptability of TNE and also diagnostic accuracy, use as a screening tool and therapeutic applications. It includes practical advice from an ear, nose, throat (ENT) specialist to optimise TNE practice, identify ENT pathology and manage complications.

METHODS

A Medline search was performed using the terms "transnasal", "ultrathin", "small calibre", "endoscopy", "EGD" to identify relevant literature.

RESULTS

There is increasing evidence that TNE is better tolerated than standard endoscopy as measured using visual analogue scales, and the main area of discomfort is nasal during insertion of the TN endoscope, which seems remediable with adequate topical anaesthesia. The diagnostic yield has been found to be similar for detection of Barrett's oesophagus, gastric cancer and GORD-associated diseases. There are some potential issues regarding the accuracy of TNE in detecting small early gastric malignant lesions, especially those in the proximal stomach. TNE is feasible and safe in a primary care population and is ideal for screening for upper gastrointestinal pathology. It has an advantage as a diagnostic tool in the elderly and those with multiple comorbidities due to fewer adverse effects on the cardiovascular system. It has significant advantages for therapeutic procedures, especially negotiating upper oesophageal strictures and insertion of nasoenteric feeding tubes.

CONCLUSIONS

TNE is well tolerated and a valuable diagnostic tool. Further evidence is required to establish its accuracy for the diagnosis of early and small gastric malignancies. There is an emerging role for TNE in therapeutic endoscopy, which needs further study.

Unsedated Small-Caliber Upper Endoscopy: An Emerging Diagnostic and Therapeutic Technology

Although conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy has become widespread in its applications and availability, it is constrained by the requirement for patient sedation. This requirement contributes to morbidity, time lost from work, and additional resource utilization in personnel and facilities. Small-caliber endoscopy is an emerging technology that enables transnasal evaluation of the upper gastrointestinal tract in a unsedated patient. This procedure can be performed in a wider range of settings, including the clinic setting where a dedicated conscious sedation suite is not available and can be incorporated into the office visit. The applications of small-caliber endoscopy include general diagnostic upper endoscopy, screening and surveillance of Barrett esophagus, and intraoperative diagnostics or postoperative evaluation of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Therapeutic applications include the placement of nasoduodenal feeding tubes, esophageal pH catheters, and impedance catheters. When used in the sedated patient, small-caliber endoscopy can also facilitate esophageal stricture dilation and transnasal placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. This review discusses the techniques, equipment, and applications of small-caliber endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

High-resolution microendoscopy for esophageal cancer screening in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis

AIM

To study the cost-effectiveness of high-resolution microendoscopy (HRME) in an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) screening program in China.

METHODS

A decision analytic Markov model of ESCC was developed. Separate model analyses were conducted for cohorts consisting of an average-risk population or a high-risk population in China. Hypothetical 50-year-old individuals were followed until age 80 or death. We compared three different strategies for both cohorts: (1) no screening; (2) standard endoscopic screening with Lugol's iodine staining; and (3) endoscopic screening with Lugol's iodine staining and an HRME. Model parameters were estimated from the literature as well as from GLOBOCAN, the Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide cancer database. Health states in the model included non-neoplasia, mild dysplasia, moderate dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, intramucosal carcinoma, operable cancer, inoperable cancer, and death. Separate ESCC incidence transition rates were generated for the average-risk and high-risk populations. Costs in Chinese currency were converted to international dollars (I$) and were adjusted to 2012 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.

RESULTS

The main outcome measurements for this study were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). For the average-risk population, the HRME screening strategy produced 0.043 more QALYs than the no screening strategy at an additional cost of I$646, resulting in an ICER of I$11808 per QALY gained. Standard endoscopic screening was weakly dominated. Among the high-risk population, when the HRME screening strategy was compared with the standard screening strategy, the ICER was I$8173 per QALY. For both the high-risk and average-risk screening populations, the HRME screening strategy appeared to be the most cost-effective strategy, producing ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold, I$23500 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that, for the average-risk population, higher specificity of Lugol's iodine (> 40%) and lower specificity of HRME (< 70%) could make Lugol's iodine screening cost-effective. For the high-risk population, the results of the model were not substantially affected by varying the follow-up rate after Lugol's iodine screening, Lugol's iodine test characteristics (sensitivity and specificity), or HRME specificity.

CONCLUSION

The incorporation of HRME into an ESCC screening program could be cost-effective in China. Larger studies of HRME performance are needed to confirm these findings.

Randomised clinical study: comparison of acceptability, patient tolerance, cardiac stress and endoscopic views in transnasal and transoral endoscopy under local anaesthetic

BACKGROUND

Transnasal endoscopy (TNE) with ultrathin endoscopes has been advocated as an attractive alternative, for diagnostic upper endoscopy.

AIM

To assess tolerability, acceptability and quality of TNE, in comparison with standard upper endoscopy (SOGD, standard oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy) under local anaesthetic.

METHODS

We prospectively recruited 157 patients (83 females/74 males) mean age 57 years. The Fujinon EG530N (5.9 mm) and EG530WR (9.4 mm) endoscopes were used. The endoscopist and all patients completed detailed questionnaires regarding tolerability, acceptance and quality of endoscopy using standard visual analogue scales (VAS). Oxygen saturation (SaO2 ), heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were recorded. Quality of biopsies was evaluated.

RESULTS

Analysis included 161 procedures (TNE:79, SOGD:82) with duodenal intubation achieved in all patients. VAS scores for patient comfort were significantly better in the TNE group (7.3 vs. 5.3 respectively, P < 0.001). Twenty patients with previous experience of standard endoscopy were randomised to TNE and 19 of them (95.5%) preferred the TNE. Gagging was significantly less in the TNE group (0.12 vs. 3.41 respectively, P < 0.001). Cardiovascular stress was significantly less in the TNE group irrespective of the degree of gagging or comfort. TNE biopsies were smaller, but adequate for definitive diagnosis, similarly to standard endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Transnasal endoscopy is superior to SOGD in terms of comfort and patient acceptance with significantly less cardiovascular stress. TNE can routinely be used as alternative to SOGD under local anaesthetic, for diagnosis and should be preferentially offered in cardiorespiratory compromised patients.

Statins and aspirin for chemoprevention in Barrett's esophagus: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis

Data suggest that aspirin, statins, or a combination of the two drugs may lower the progression of Barrett's esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, aspirin is associated with potential complications such as gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke, and statins are associated with myopathy. We developed a simulation disease model to study the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of aspirin and statin chemoprevention against esophageal adenocarcinoma. A decision analytic Markov model was constructed to compare four strategies for Barrett's esophagus management; all regimens included standard endoscopic surveillance regimens: (i) endoscopic surveillance alone, (ii) aspirin therapy, (iii) statin therapy, and (iv) combination therapy of aspirin and statin. Endpoints evaluated were life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact of model input uncertainty on results. Assuming an annual progression rate of 0.33% per year from Barrett's esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma, aspirin therapy was more effective and cost less than (dominated) endoscopic surveillance alone. When combination therapy was compared with aspirin therapy, the ICER was $158,000/QALY, which was above our willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Statin therapy was dominated by combination therapy. When higher annual cancer progression rates were assumed in the model (0.5% per year), combination therapy was cost-effective compared with aspirin therapy, producing an ICER of $96,000/QALY. In conclusion, aspirin chemoprevention was both more effective and cost less than endoscopic surveillance alone. Combination therapy using both aspirin and statin is expensive but could be cost-effective in patients at higher risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The cost effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) reduces the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) with high-grade dysplasia (HGD), but its effects in patients without dysplasia are debatable. We analyzed the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of RFA for the management of BE.

METHODS

We constructed a decision analytic Markov model. We conducted separate analyses of hypothetical cohorts of patients with BE with dysplasia (HGD or low-grade [LGD]) and without dysplasia. In the analysis of the group with HGD, we compared results of initial RFA with endoscopic surveillance with surgery when cancer was detected. In analyzing the group with LGD or no dysplasia, we compared 3 strategies: endoscopic surveillance with surgery when cancer was detected (S1), endoscopic surveillance with RFA when HGD was detected (S2), and initial RFA followed by endoscopic surveillance (S3).

RESULTS

Among patients with HGD, initial RFA was more effective and less costly than endoscopic surveillance. Among patients with LGD, when S3 was compared with S2, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18,231/quality-adjusted life-year, assuming an annual rate of progression rate from LGD to EAC of 0.5%/year. For patients without dysplasia, S2 was more effective and less costly than S1. In a comparison of S3 with S2, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $205,500, $124,796, and $118,338/quality-adjusted life-year using annual rates of progression of no dysplasia to EAC of 0.12%, 0.33%, or 0.5% per year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

By using updated data, initial RFA might not be cost effective for patients with BE without dysplasia, within the range of plausible rates of progression of BE to EAC, and be prohibitively expensive, from a policy perspective. RFA might be cost effective for confirmed and stable LGD. Initial RFA is more effective and less costly than endoscopic surveillance in HGD.

A cost-utility analysis of ablative therapy for Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Recommendations for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) include endoscopic surveillance with esophagectomy for early-stage cancer, although new technologies to ablate dysplasia and metaplasia are available. This study compares the cost utility of ablation with that of endoscopic surveillance strategies.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was created to examine a population of patients with BE (mean age 50), with separate analyses for patients with no dysplasia, low-grade dysplasia (LGD), or high-grade dysplasia (HGD). Strategies compared were no endoscopic surveillance; endoscopic surveillance with ablation for incident dysplasia; immediate ablation followed by endoscopic surveillance in all patients or limited to patients in whom metaplasia persisted; and esophagectomy. Ablation modalities modeled included radiofrequency, argon plasma coagulation, multipolar electrocoagulation, and photodynamic therapy.

RESULTS

Endoscopic ablation for patients with HGD could increase life expectancy by 3 quality-adjusted years at an incremental cost of <$6,000 compared with no intervention. Patients with LGD or no dysplasia can also be optimally managed with ablation, but continued surveillance after eradication of metaplasia is expensive. If ablation permanently eradicates >or=28% of LGD or 40% of nondysplastic metaplasia, ablation would be preferred to surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ablation could be the preferred strategy for managing patients with BE with HGD. Ablation might also be preferred in subjects with LGD or no dysplasia, but the cost effectiveness depends on the long-term effectiveness of ablation and whether surveillance endoscopy can be discontinued after successful ablation. As further postablation data become available, the optimal management strategy will be clarified.

A study comparing tolerability, satisfaction and acceptance of three different techniques for esophageal endoscopy: sedated conventional, unsedated peroral ultra thin, and esophageal capsule

Three methods of esophagoscopy are available until now: sedated conventional endoscopy, unsedated ultrathin endoscopy, and esophageal capsule endoscopy. The three methods carry comparable diagnostic accuracy and different complication rates. Although all of them have been found well accepted from patients, no comparative study comprising the three techniques has been published. The aim of this study was to compare the three methods of esophagoscopy regarding tolerability, satisfaction, and acceptance. Twenty patients with large esophageal varices and 10 with gastroesophageal reflux disease were prospectively included. All patients underwent consecutively sedated conventional endoscopy, unsedated ultrathin endoscopy, and esophageal capsule endoscopy. After each procedure, patients completed a seven-item questionnaire. The total positive attitude of patients toward all methods was high. However, statistical analysis revealed the following differences in favor of esophageal capsule endoscopy: (i) total positive attitude has been found higher (chi(2)= 18.2, df = 2, P= 0.00), (ii) less patients felt pain (chi(2)= 6.9, df = 2, P= 0.03) and discomfort (chi(2)= 22.1, df = 2, P= 0.00), (iii) less patients experienced difficulty (chi(2)= 13.7, df = 2, P= 0.01), and (iv) more patients were willing to undergo esophageal capsule endoscopy in the future (chi(2)= 12.1, df = 2, P= 0.002). Esophageal capsule endoscopy was characterized by a more positive general attitude and caused less pain and discomfort. Sedated conventional endoscopy has been found more difficult. More patients would repeat esophageal capsule endoscopy in the future. Patients' total position for all three available techniques for esophageal endoscopy was excellent and renders the observed advantage of esophageal capsule endoscopy over both sedated conventional and unsedated ultrathin endoscopy a statistical finding without a real clinical benefit.

Office-based unsedated small-caliber endoscopy is equivalent to conventional sedated endoscopy in screening and surveillance for Barrett's esophagus: a randomized and blinded comparison

OBJECTIVES

A major limitation to screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus is the complexity, expense, and risk associated with sedation for upper endoscopy. This study examines the feasibility, accuracy, and patient acceptability of office-based unsedated endoscopy as an alternative.

METHODS

Of 274 eligible adults scheduled for endoscopic screening for gastroesophageal reflux symptoms or surveillance of Barrett's esophagus at a tertiary care center, 121 underwent unsedated small-caliber endoscopy and conventional endoscopy in a randomized crossover study. The two procedures were compared with regard to histological detection of Barrett's esophagus and dysplasia and biopsy size. Patients answered questionnaires assessing the tolerability of the procedures.

RESULTS

The prevalence of Barrett's esophagus was 26% using conventional endoscopy and 30% using unsedated endoscopy (P= 0.503). The level of agreement between the two approaches was "moderate" (kappa= 0.591). Each modality detected four cases of low-grade dysplasia with concordance on one case. The tissue samples collected with unsedated endoscopy were smaller than with conventional endoscopy (P < 0.001). The majority of subjects rated their experience with both procedures as being well tolerated with minimal or no difficulty. When asked which procedure they would prefer in the future, 71% (81/114) chose unsedated small-caliber endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Office-based unsedated small-caliber endoscopy is technically feasible, well tolerated, and accurate in screening for Barrett's esophagus, despite yielding a smaller biopsy specimen. This approach bears the potential to eliminate the infrastructure and cost required for intravenous sedation in this application.

Defining a clinically significant adverse impact of diagnosing Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing a potentially life-threatening disease may adversely affect patient quality of life (QOL) independent of biologic effects. It is unknown whether the mere diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE) adversely impacts patients' preferences (health-state utility) sufficiently to impair the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

GOAL

To calculate the threshold impact on utility incurred by diagnosing BE that would allow screening to remain cost-effective.

STUDY

A Markov model was developed to examine strategies of no screening, and screening with surveillance of BE. Patients were 50-year-old white men with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux followed until 80 years of age or death. The primary outcomes were the threshold decrements in utility incurred by diagnosing BE based on willingness to pay (WTP) of dollar 50,000 and dollar 100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

For a WTP of dollar 50,000/QALY, the decrement in utility could be as great as 9%, meaning that screening is cost-effective as long as diagnosing BE does not impair QOL by more than 9%. For a WTP of dollar 100,000, the decrement could be as great as 10.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

The decrement in utility caused by diagnosing BE may be substantial without compromising the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening.

High accuracy and cost-effectiveness of a biopsy-avoiding endoscopic approach in diagnosing coeliac disease

BACKGROUND

The 'immersion' technique during upper endoscopy allows the visualization of duodenal villi and the detection of total villous atrophy.

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of the immersion technique in detecting total villous atrophy in suspected coeliac patients. The accuracy in diagnosing coeliac disease and the potential cost-sparing of a biopsy-avoiding approach, based on selection of individuals with coeliac disease-related antibodies and on endoscopic detection of absence of villi, were also analysed.

METHODS

The immersion technique was performed in 79 patients with positive antibodies and in 105 controls. Duodenal villi were evaluated as present or absent. As reference, results were compared with histology. Diagnostic approaches, including endoscopy with or without biopsy, were designed to investigate patients with coeliac disease-related antibodies and total villous atrophy. A cost-minimization analysis was performed.

RESULTS

All patients with positive antibodies had coeliac disease. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of endoscopy to detect total villous atrophy was always 100%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of biopsy-avoiding or biopsy-including strategies in diagnosing coeliac disease when villi were absent was always 100%. The biopsy-avoiding strategy was cost-sparing.

CONCLUSIONS

Upper endoscopy is highly accurate in detecting total villous atrophy coeliac patients. A biopsy-avoiding approach is both accurate and cost-sparing to diagnose coeliac disease in subjects with marked duodenal villous atrophy.

The cost-effectiveness of biomarkers for predicting the development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The recommended surveillance strategy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma may prevent as few as 50% of cancer deaths. Tissue biomarkers have been proposed to identify high-risk patients.

AIM

To determine performance characteristics of an ideal biomarker, or panel of biomarkers, that would make its use more cost-effective than the current surveillance strategy.

METHODS

We created a Markov model using data from published literature, and performed a cost-utility analysis. The population consisted of 50-year-old Caucasian men with gastro-oesophageal reflux, who were monitored until age 80. We examined strategies of observation only, current practice (dysplasia-guided surveillance), surveillance every 3 months for patients with a positive biomarker (biomarker-guided surveillance), and oesophagectomy immediately for a positive biomarker (biomarker-guided oesophagectomy). The primary outcome was the threshold cost and performance characteristics needed for a biomarker to be more cost-effective than current practice.

RESULTS

Regardless of the cost, the biomarker needs to be at least 95% specific for biomarker-guided oesophagectomy to be cost-effective. For biomarker-guided surveillance to be cost-effective, a $100 biomarker could be 80% sensitive and specific.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomarkers predicting the development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma would need to be fairly accurate and inexpensive to be cost-effective. These results should guide the development of biomarkers for oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Serological testing for coeliac disease in patients with symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome may have coeliac disease.

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of coeliac disease testing in suspected irritable bowel syndrome.

METHODS

We used decision analysis to estimate the number of coeliac disease cases detected, quality-adjusted life-years gained, and costs resulting from testing suspected irritable bowel syndrome patients for tissue transglutaminase antibody or an antibody panel (tissue transglutaminase, gliadin, total immunoglobulin A). Positive tests prompted endoscopic biopsy. A gluten-free diet improved quality of life in coeliac disease.

RESULTS

Assuming a coeliac disease prevalence of 3%, tissue transglutaminase detected 28 and the panel detected 29 of 30 coeliac disease cases among 1000 suspected irritable bowel syndrome patients. The cost/case detected was $4600 with tissue transglutaminase and $8800 with the panel. The cost/quality-adjusted life-year gained with tissue transglutaminase was $7400, and the incremental cost/quality-adjusted life-year gained for the panel vs. tissue transglutaminase was $287 000. Tissue transglutaminase cost under $100 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained at a coeliac disease prevalence >/=1.1%, assuming a modest utility gain of 0.005 with coeliac disease diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing for coeliac disease in patients with suspected irritable bowel syndrome is likely to be cost-effective even at a relatively low coeliac disease prevalence and with small improvements in quality of life with a gluten-free diet.

Unsedated endoscopy

Unsedated endoscopy will likely play an increasingly important role in the daily practice of GI endoscopy. Although there is adequate evidence that un-sedated endoscopy is technically feasible in selected patient populations, there area number of obstacles preventing its widespread adoption. Small-caliber endoscopy is not as accurate as conventional EGD. This may be remedied as improvements in endoscope technology emerge. Many patients refuse to consider an unsedated examination, and those who do participate report more symptoms of discomfort than patients undergoing conventional endoscopy. Whether patients will accept mild discomfort in exchange for substantial cost savings has not been evaluated. Finally, although unsedated endoscopy seems to have a low complication rate, its safety has not been formally addressed in large studies. Large, randomized, controlled studies are needed to better determine the role of un-sedated small-caliber endoscopy in daily practice. Unsedated colonoscopy may follow the footsteps of unsedated upper endoscopy with even more obstacles to overcome before its widespread application.

Unsedated ultrathin EGD is well accepted when compared with conventional sedated EGD: a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In the United States, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is usually performed using intravenous sedation. Sedation increases the rate of both complications and costs of endoscopy. Unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) using conventional 8-11-mm endoscopes is an alternative to sedated endoscopy but is generally perceived as unacceptable to many American patients. Unsedated EGD using ultrathin 5-6-mm endoscopes is better tolerated. A randomized trial comparing unsedated ultrathin EGD (UT-EGD) with sedated conventional EGD (C-EGD) in a diverse American population is needed.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 80 patients scheduled to undergo elective outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated UT-EGD or sedated C-EGD. The study was carried out at San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Liver and Digestive Health Medical Clinic, San Jose.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of patients randomized to unsedated UT-EGD and sedated C-EGD were similar. Moreover, there were no significant differences in overall patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat endoscopy in the same manner among the 2 study groups. There was, however, a significant difference in median total procedure time between the 2 study groups of 1.5 hours (P < 0.0001). The mean (+/- SD) total procedure cost was 512.4 US dollars (+/- 100.8 US dollars) for sedated C-EGD and 328.6 US dollars (+/- 70.3 US dollars) for unsedated UT-EGD (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing unsedated UT-EGD are as satisfied as patients undergoing sedated C-EGD and are just as willing to repeat an unsedated UT-EGD. Unsedated UT-EGD was also faster, less costly, and may allow greater accessibility to this procedure.

Interventional endoscopy

Technologic milestones have been achieved in the field of interventional endoscopy. These have resulted in improved hemostasis, more accurate cancer staging, safer and less invasive methods of removing gastric neoplasms, and endoscopic palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction via stenting. However, just as these milestones are achieved, new challenges emerge: (1) How much sedation can one use safely? (2) What is the risk of transmitting infection and how can that be prevented? (3) Can scopes be made smaller and more comfortable? (4) Can optics be improved? (5) Can endoscopic repair of gastric perforations be safely performed? In this section, we review some of these issues. First, we will provide an update on the most recent concepts in the field of light sedation and infection control. Then, a review of the most commonly used interventional endoscopy procedures, including hemostasis, endosonography, endoscopic mucosal resection, stenting, and percutaneous gastrostomy tube placements. Finally, an overview of the ongoing research and development in the field of interventional endoscopy and how it can improve patient comfort, diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic efficacy, and training in the future.