Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (OGD) Digestive System
Conditions
Interventions
1. Transnasal OGD versus conventional (oral) OGD - a comparison of two routinely performed endoscopy procedures
2. Patients receved either a conventional OGD or a transnasal OGD only once and did not
Sponsors
North West London Hospitals NHS Trust (UK)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Adult patients referred for diagnostic OGD to St Mark?s Hospital Endoscopy Unit 2. Patients who are able to give informed consent
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. Patients who are unwilling to have a tOGD 2. Patients with a history of nasal trauma or nasal surgery 3. Patients with a history of recurrent epistaxis 4. Patients with a history of haemorrhagic tendency or who are on anticoagulation 5. Patients with a history of severe co-morbidity (especially respiratory disease) as judged by the investigators 6. Patients already participating in another trial 7. Patients lacking capacity to give informed consent
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Patient tolerance, feasibility and safety of tOGD procedures (done using 4.9mm and 5.9mm ultrathin (UT) endoscopes) as compared to cOGD procedures (done using standard 9.0mm or UT 4.9mm and 5.9mm endoscopes) | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Patient tolerance, feasibility and safety of tOGD procedures (done using 4.9mm UT endoscopes)as compared to tOGD procedeures (done using 5.9mm ultrathin (UT) endoscopes). 2. Patient tolerance, feasibility and safety of tOGD procedures done using 4.9mm and 5.9mm ultrathin (UT) endoscopes) and cOGD procedeures (done under sedation using standard 9.0mm or UT 4.9mm and 5.9mm endoscopes) 3. Patient tolerance, feasibility and safety of tOGD procedures done using 4.9mm and 5.9mm ultrathin (UT) endoscopes) and cOGD procedeures (done without use of sedation using standard 9.0mm or UT 4.9mm and 5.9mm endoscopes) | — |
Countries
United Kingdom
Outcome results
None listed