Dataset Information

Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video).

ABSTRACT: Endoscopic screening for esophageal neoplasia can identify patients eligible for early intervention for precancerous lesions. Unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy may provide an efficient and accurate endoscopic assessment with fewer risks and less cost, compared with conventional upper endoscopy.To assess the feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy in a primary care population.Multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study.Two outpatient tertiary-care centers.This study involved a general medical clinic population aged between 40 and 85 years.Unsedated, office-based transnasal esophagoscopy.Procedure yield; completeness of examination; procedure length; adverse events and complications; choking, gagging, pain, or anxiety during the examination; and overall tolerability.A total of 426 participants (mean [± standard deviation] age 55.8 ± 9.5 years; 43% male) enrolled in the study, and 422 (99%) completed the examination. Mean (± standard deviation) examination time was 3.7 ± 1.8 minutes. There were no serious adverse events, and 12 participants (2.8%) reported minor complications. Participants reported minimal choking, gagging, pain, or anxiety. The examination was well-tolerated by most participants. Overall, 38% of participants had an esophageal finding that changed management (34% erosive esophagitis, 4% Barrett's esophagus).Nonrandomized study, tertiary-care centers only, self-selected population with a large proportion reporting esophageal symptoms.Unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy is a feasible, safe, and well-tolerated method to screen for esophageal disease in a primary care population. Endoscopic findings are common in this patient population.

SUBMITTER: Peery AF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4154478 | biostudies-literature | 2012 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video).

Peery Anne F AF Hoppo Toshitaka T Garman Katherine S KS Dellon Evan S ES Daugherty Norma N Bream Susan S Sanz Alejandro F AF Davison Jon J Spacek Melissa M Connors Diane D Faulx Ashley L AL Chak Amitabh A Luketich James D JD Shaheen Nicholas J NJ Jobe Blair A BA

Gastrointestinal endoscopy 20120316 5

<h4>Background</h4>Endoscopic screening for esophageal neoplasia can identify patients eligible for early intervention for precancerous lesions. Unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy may provide an efficient and accurate endoscopic assessment with fewer risks and less cost, compared with conventional upper endoscopy.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy in a primary care population.<h4>Design</h4>Multicenter, prospective, ...[more]

PMID: 22425272

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.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, opportunities to conduct anatomical segmentectomies for early stage lung cancer, metastatic lung tumor, and so on have been increasing. Generally, uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (U-VATS) uncommon segmentectomy is technically more complicated because of limited angulation compared to multiportal VATS (M-VATS) and the need to treat peripheral vessels/bronchi compared to common segmentectomy. This study aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of U-VATS uncommon segmentectomy compared with U-VATS common segmentectomy and M-VATS uncommon segmentectomy.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 76 patients in the M-VATS group and 45 patients in the U-VATS group who underwent VATS segmentectomy from January 2015 to December 2020. During that period, the perioperative results of U-VATS uncommon (n=22) segmentectomy were compared with those of U-VATS common (n=23) and M-VATS uncommon (n=37) segmentectomy. Uncommon segmentectomy was defined as any segmentectomy other than segmentectomies of the lingual, basilar, or superior segment of the lower lobe (S6), and upper division of the left upper lobe. All patients in our department underwent preoperative three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) angiography and bronchography to image bronchovascular structures and determine the resection line.ResultsPatients characteristics were similar between the U-VATS uncommon segmentectomy group and the U-VATS common segmentectomy group or the M-VATS uncommon segmentectomy group. In U-VATS, there were no significant differences between common and uncommon segmentectomy in operation time, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospitalization, and postoperative complications. Comparing M-VATS and U-VATS uncommon segmentectomies, operation time (145±35 vs. 185±44 min, P<0.001) and postoperative hospitalization (3.1±1.6 vs. 4.2±1.8 days, P=0.02) were significantly shorter in the U-VATS group than in the M-VATS group. There were no significant differences in blood loss, intraoperative bleeding, duration of postoperative drainage and postoperative complications.ConclusionsIn U-VATS, both types of segmentectomies can be achieved with similar results. Moreover, U-VATS shortened operation time and postoperative hospitalization in uncommon segmentectomy compared with conventional M-VATS. U-VATS is a useful approach for uncommon segmentectomy.

Project description:PurposeAdjunct cervical cancer screening methods are under evaluation to improve the diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening in low- and middle-income countries. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of smartphone-based cervicography among HPV-positive women living with HIV (WLWH) in Western Kenya.MethodsHPV-positive WLWH of 25-49 years of age enrolled in a clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04191967) had digital images of the cervix taken using a smartphone by a nonphysician provider following visual inspection with acetic acid. All participants had colposcopy-directed biopsy before treatment. Cervical images were evaluated by three off-site colposcopists for quality, diagnostic utility, and assigned a presumed diagnosis. We determined the proportion of images rates as low, medium, or high quality, interobserver agreement using Cohen's Kappa statistic, and the off-site colposcopist's sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared with histopathology. Acceptability was evaluated using a questionnaire.ResultsOne hundred sixty-four HPV-positive WLWH underwent cervicography during the study period. Mean age was 37.3 years. Images from the first 94 participants were evaluated by off-site colposcopists, with a majority (70.9%) rated as high quality. Off-site colposcopists had a sensitivity ranging from 21.4% (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.43) to 35.7% (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.46) and a specificity between 85.5% (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.90) to 94.9% (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.98) for diagnosis of CIN2+ based compared with histopathology. The majority of women, 99.4%, were comfortable having an image of their cervix taken as part of screening.ConclusionCervicography by a nonphysician provider as an adjunct to HPV-based screening among WLWH in a low- and middle-income country setting is feasible and acceptable. However, low sensitivity for diagnosis of CIN2+ by off-site expert colposcopists highlights the limitations of cervicography.

Project description:BackgroundMajor international guidelines recommend mental health screening during the perinatal period. However, substantial barriers to screening have been reported by pregnant and postpartum women and perinatal care providers. E-screening offers benefits that may address implementation challenges.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of Web-based mental health e-screening compared with paper-based screening among pregnant women. A secondary objective was to identify factors associated with women's preferences for e-screening and disclosure of mental health concerns.MethodsPregnant women recruited from community and hospital-based antenatal clinics and hospital-based prenatal classes were computer-randomized to a fully automated Web-based e-screening intervention group or a paper-based control group. Women were eligible if they spoke or read English, were willing to be randomized to e-screening, and were willing to participate in a follow-up diagnostic interview. The intervention group completed the Antenatal Psychosocial Health Assessment and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale on a tablet computer, while controls completed them on paper. All women completed self-report baseline questions and were telephoned 1 week after randomization by a blinded research assistant for a MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Renker and Tonkin's tool of feasibility and acceptability of computerized screening was used to assess the feasibility and acceptability of e-screening compared with paper-based screening. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. To identify factors associated with preference for e-screening and disclosure, variables associated with each outcome at P<.20 were simultaneously entered into final multivariable models to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs.ResultsOf the 675 eligible women approached, 636 agreed to participate (participation rate 94.2%) and were randomized to the intervention (n=305) or control (n=331) groups. There were no significant baseline differences between groups. More women in the e-screening group strongly or somewhat agreed that they would like to use a tablet for answering questions on emotional health (57.9%, 175/302 vs 37.2%, 121/325) and would prefer using a tablet to paper (46.0%, 139/302 vs 29.2%, 95/325), compared with women in the paper-based screening group. There were no differences between groups in women's disclosure of emotional health concerns (94.1%, 284/302 vs 90.2%, 293/325). Women in the e-screening group consistently reported the features of e-screening more favorably than controls (more private or confidential, less impersonal, less time-consuming). In the multivariable models, being in the e-screening group was significantly associated with preferring e-screening (AOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.66-3.17), while no factors were significantly associated with disclosure.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that mental health e-screening is feasible and acceptable to pregnant women.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01899534; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01899534 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ntWg1yWb).

Dataset Information

Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video).

Publications

Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets