Skip to content

EUS vs EGD in Emergency Room Patients Referred for EGD

A Pilot Study to Assess the Potential Value of Adding Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) to Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) in Emergency Room Patients Referred for EGD

Status
Withdrawn
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04408872
Acronym
EUSvsEGD
Enrollment
0
Registered
2020-05-29
Start date
2020-10-31
Completion date
2021-06-30
Last updated
2021-01-15

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Abdominal Pain

Brief summary

Emergency room patients referred for esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) often have many possible causes for their symptoms. These patients inevitably undergo further testing if EGD is inconclusive, which adds costs and prolongs emergency room length of stay (LOS).EUS has traditionally been used after EGD for a myriad of reasons that no longer apply. The investigators therefore propose a prospective pilot study to determine whether adding primary EUS to EGD can reduce LOS and resource utilisation in emergency room patients referred for EGD.

Detailed description

Emergency room patients referred for esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) often have many possible causes for their symptoms. These inevitably undergo further testing if EGD is inconclusive, which adds costs and inevitably prolongs emergency room length of stay (LOS). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) combines EGD with high-resolution ultrasound imaging of pancreas, liver and biliary system and is the best test to diagnose bile duct stones, early chronic pancreatitis, and small \[\<2cm\] pancreatic cancers (all of which cannot be seen by regular ultrasound or CT scanning or MRI, yet are included in the differential diagnosis of EGD-negative abdominal pain). EUS has traditionally been used after EGD, due to lack of availability, increased cost, and to increased risk due to larger scope diameter. However, the latest generation of EUS scopes have the same outer diameter as conventional gastroscopes, there is much wider availability of EUS in university and community hospital settings, and the cost per procedure is lower, due to increased procedural numbers and reduced maintenance costs. In experienced hands, diagnostic EUS is now as safe and as accurate as EGD for diagnosing mucosal pathology and takes approximately 1 minute longer.(1; 2) Previously published work by our group suggests that EUS may reduce resource consumption in patients with unexplained abdominal pain.(3) The investigators also showed that in refractory dyspepsia with normal EGD and CT, EUS identified signs of occult chronic pancreatitis in up to 20% of cases.(4) More recently, EUS was found to identify previously undiagnosed, potential causes of unexplained abdominal pain in up to 9% of patients, or at least provides the same, if not more information than EGD and abdominal US alone.(2; 5; 6) There are no previous studies that have prospectively compared the yield of EGD and PEUS in emergency room patients. The investigators hypothesize that adding EUS to EGD (primary EUS \[PEUS\]) can safely and more efficiently diagnose or exclude significant gastro-intestinal and pancreatico-biliary pathology in emergency room patients in whom EGD has been requested. The investigators therefore propose a prospective pilot study to perform a preliminary analysis of the potential impact of PEUS on the ability to make an early GI diagnosis (EGID), length of stay (LOS) and resource utilisation in emergency room patients referred for EGD. If there is sufficient evidence of a clinically useful impact, an appropriately powered study to determine whether PEUS is clinically superior to EGD with respect to these variables will be performed.

Interventions

EGD: ENDOSCOPIC PROCEDURE DURING WHICH THE ESOPHAGUS, STOMACH AND DUODENUM ARE VISUALISED WITH A TINY CAMERA IMPLANTED AT THE END OF AN ENDOSCOPE.

EUS: SAME AS EGD, BUT IN ADDITION HAS AN INTEGRATED ULTRASOUND PROBE WHICH ALLOWS TO EXAMINE THE PANCREAS, LIVER AND BILIARY SYSTEM.

Sponsors

Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM)
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

This is an open-label two-arm, single center, superiority trial with 1:1 allocation ratio between EUS and standard intervention EGD.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. EGD requested by the consulting gastroenterologist 2. Informed consent

Exclusion criteria

1. Evidence of hemodynamic instability and/or ongoing active GI bleeding. 2. Any suspicion of obstruction distal to the angle of Treitz.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Length of stay (LOS) at the emergency room48 hoursThe primary outcome will be time (hours) to discharge, or admission (for a GI diagnosis) after receipt of the endoscopy (EGD or EUS) report by the consulting gastroenterologist.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Frequency of conversion to the alternate procedure (EGD to EUS, or EUS to EGD)48 hoursNumber of subjects who need to undergo both procedures
Alternate procedures undergone during emergency room stay48 hoursNumber of subsequent imaging procedures other than endoscopy
Complications during emergency room stay96 hoursDefined as any event that prolongs hospital stay

Countries

Canada

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026