Women and transnasal endoscopy

Is topical lidocaine beneficial before catheter insertion in esophageal manometry and ambulatory pH monitoring?

BACKGROUND

Conventionally, topical anesthesia is applied to improve the tolerance of esophageal manometry (EM) and ambulatory pH monitoring (apH) but there is presently no evidence supporting this practice. We aimed to compare the tolerance of EM and apH with vs without topical lidocaine anesthesia.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted at our center between January 2017 and January 2019. All patients who underwent EM or apH and completed a systematically distributed standardized patient survey were included. From January 2017 to June 2018, all patients had a viscous lidocaine solution applied before EM and apH ("lidocaine" group). After June 2018, we ceased applying any topical anesthesia ("no lidocaine" group). Patient-reported adverse effects and satisfaction scores were compared between these two patient groups.

KEY RESULTS

Two hundred forty-nine patient surveys were included. "Lidocaine" (n = 124) and "no lidocaine" (n = 125) groups were similar in age (56.9 ± 14.0 vs 56.0 ± 13.7; P = .77) and gender distributions (65.9% vs 63.3% female; P = .68). Patients in the "lidocaine" group were less likely to report pain during catheter insertion (33.6% vs 50.8%; P = .007, OR: 0.49 [95% CI 0.29-0.83]) and reported a lower overall pain score (2.82 ± 1.38 vs 3.20 ± 1.42 on 5; P = .04). There was a tendency toward increased global satisfaction with lidocaine application but that was not statistically significant (4.36 ± 1.05 vs 4.11 ± 1.13; P = .08). In subgroup analyses, female patients, younger patients, and patients who underwent EM were more likely to benefit from lidocaine application.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Application of topical lidocaine before esophageal motility tests reduces pain during catheter insertion and overall pain.

Unsedated transnasal EGD in daily practice: results with 1100 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

EGD can be performed transnasally in adults by using small-diameter endoscopes. A large prospective study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and tolerance of diagnostic transnasal EGD in daily practice.

METHODS

Unsedated transnasal EGD was attempted in 1100 consecutive patients, in 3 different institutions, by using a 5.9-mm or a 5.3-mm diameter endoscope. The operator determined whether the procedure was successful or unsuccessful, the reason for failures, and any side effects. The influence of gender, age, endoscope diameter, and type of topical anesthesia on the success or failure of the procedure was evaluated. Patients who previously had undergone peroral EGD were queried as to which procedure they preferred.

RESULTS

Transnasal EGD was feasible in 93.9% of the patients. The causes of failure were as follows: unsuccessful transnasal insertion (62.7%), patient refusal (19.4%), and nasal pain (17.9%). Female gender, young age (< or =35 years), and larger-endoscope diameter were significant predictive factors for procedure failure. Side effects included the following: epistaxis (2.3%), nasal pain (1.6%), and vaso-vagal reaction (0.3%). A majority (91%) of the patients who previously had undergone unsedated peroral EGD with a standard 9.8-mm diameter endoscope preferred transnasal EGD with a small-diameter endoscope.

CONCLUSIONS

Transnasal EGD is feasible in daily endoscopic practice and is preferred by patients. Side effects are rare.