Dataset Information

Nasal breathing is superior to oral breathing when performing and undergoing transnasal endoscopy: a randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND : Transnasal endoscopy presents a technical difficulty when inserting the flexible endoscope. It is unclear whether a particular breathing method is useful for transnasal endoscopy. Therefore, we conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial to compare endoscopic operability and patient tolerance between patients assigned to nasal breathing or oral breathing groups. METHODS : 198 eligible patients were randomly assigned to undergo transnasal endoscopy with nasal breathing or with oral breathing. Endoscopists and patients answered questionnaires on the endoscopic operability and patient tolerance using a 100-mm visual analog scale ranging from 0 (non-existent) to 100 (most difficult/unbearable). The visibility of the upper-middle pharynx was recorded. RESULTS : Patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. Nasal breathing showed a higher rate of good visibility of the upper-middle pharynx than oral breathing (91.9 % vs. 27.6 %; P < 0.001). Nasal breathing showed lower mean [SD] scores than oral breathing in terms of overall technical difficulty (21.0 [11.4] vs. 35.4 [15.0]; P < 0.001). Regarding patient tolerance, nasal breathing showed lower scores than oral breathing for overall discomfort (22.1 [18.8] vs. 30.5 [20.9]; P = 0.004) and other symptoms, including nasal and throat pain, choking, suffocating, gagging, belching, and bloating (all P < 0.05). The pharyngeal bleeding rate was lower in the nasal breathing group than in the oral breathing group (0 % vs. 9.2 %; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS : Nasal breathing is superior to oral breathing for those performing and undergoing transnasal endoscopy. Nasal breathing led to good visibility of the upper-middle pharynx, improved endoscopic operability, and better patient tolerance, and was safer owing to decreased pharyngeal bleeding.

SUBMITTER: Takahashi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9974334 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nasal breathing is superior to oral breathing when performing and undergoing transnasal endoscopy: a randomized trial.

Takahashi Keitaro K Murakami Yuki Y Sasaki Takahiro T Ueno Nobuhiro N Tachibana Shion S Ikeda Junpei J Ishigaki Kenichi K Horiuchi Masashi M Yoshida Moe M Uehara Kyoko K Kobayashi Yu Y Sugiyama Yuya Y Kunogi Takehito T Muto Mizue M Ando Katsuyoshi K Muto Momotaro M Kashima Shin S Moriichi Kentaro K Tanabe Hiroki H Yanagawa Nobuyuki N Harada Kazumichi K Teramoto Takashi T Okumura Toshikatsu T Fujiya Mikihiro M

Endoscopy 20220714 3

BACKGROUND : Transnasal endoscopy presents a technical difficulty when inserting the flexible endoscope. It is unclear whether a particular breathing method is useful for transnasal endoscopy. Therefore, we conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial to compare endoscopic operability and patient tolerance between patients assigned to nasal breathing or oral breathing groups. METHODS : 198 eligible patients were randomly assigned to undergo transnasal endoscopy with nasal breathing or wit ...[more]

PMID: 35835446

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesScreening in selected high risk populations for Barrett's oesophagus (BO) and oesophageal varices (OVs) has been proposed, but there are obstacles with conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-OGD), including patient acceptability. Portable and disposable office-based transnasal endoscopy (TNE) is a feasible and accurate alternative to C-OGD that may have use in primary and secondary care. This article outlines a qualitative analysis of patient experiences of TNE and C-OGD in order to gain an insight into an acceptable delivery of an endoscopic screening service.DesignPurposeful sampling identified 23 participants who then underwent semi-structured interviews to determine their experiences of both procedures. Thematic analysis was conducted to derive meaning from their lived experiences.SettingA secondary care endoscopy unit, clinic room and interview room.ParticipantsPatients referred for BO or OV surveillance and for endoscopy to investigate dyspepsia underwent unsedated TNE using the EG Scan II device followed by C-OGD with or without sedation (patient choice), as part of a clinical trial.ResultsThe themes that arose from our analysis were: inclusivity in one's own healthcare, comfort level and convenience, validity of the procedure and application to a screening population and a sense of altruism and reciprocity. Positive aspects of TNE included participant empowerment, reduced discomfort and avoidance of conscious sedation. Participants felt that if TNE screening was of proven efficacy it would be welcomed, though views on use in a community setting were mixed.ConclusionsMost patients preferred TNE to unsedated C-OGD and the reasons they gave featured strongly in the emerging themes. Preferences between TNE and sedated C-OGD were more subtle, with equivalent comfort scores but merits and drawbacks of both being discussed. This information identifies opportunities and challenges in establishing an endoscopic screening service. Trial registration number ISRCTNregistry identifier: 70595405; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Nasal breathing is superior to oral breathing when performing and undergoing transnasal endoscopy: a randomized trial.

Publications

Nasal breathing is superior to oral breathing when performing and undergoing transnasal endoscopy: a randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets