Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Jan;71(1):11-20.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.06.016. Epub 2009 Sep 12.

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

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Chi-Tan Hu. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Jan.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources