Endoscopic-guided versus cotton-tipped applicator methods of nasal anesthesia for transnasal...

Ultrathin transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (UT-EGD) is well tolerated by patients, but the methods of nasal anesthesia are various.

To compare patient tolerance, safety, and adverse events between the endoscopic-guided (EGNA) and cotton-tipped applicator (CTNA) methods of nasal anesthesia.

Between September 2005 and September 2006, we conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled study in a large tertiary referral hospital in eastern Taiwan. In total, 235 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to the CTNA group or EGNA group before unsedated UT-EGD. We compared demographic data, procedural discomfort using a validated 5-point visual analog scale, optical quality, total procedure time, and adverse events between the two groups.

After randomization and exclusion, 101 (43 men and 58 women) and 103 (44 men and 59 women) patients were allocated to the CTNA and EGNA groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics and periprocedural hemodynamics of patients in the two groups were similar. There was no statistical difference in insertion failure rates between the two methods (CTNA 10.9%vs EGNA 7.7%, P= 0.59). Pain scores during both anesthesia (2.3 +/- 0.4 vs 3.5 +/- 0.6, P < 0.001) and insertion (2.8 +/- 1.2 vs 3.8 +/- 1.8, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the EGNA group; however, the sensation of bad taste was significantly worse in the EGNA group (2.3 +/- 1.3 vs 1.9 +/- 1.4, P= 0.040). Less epistaxis happened in the EGNA group than in the CTNA group. The EGNA method had a significantly better visual capacity and shorter procedure time. More patients in the EGNA group said they would like to receive the same procedure the next time.

Compared with the CTNA method, in which the taste of lidocaine gel was more acceptable, EGNA appeared to be more tolerable, caused less epistaxis, improved visualization capacity, and reduced procedure time.