Accuracy of a narrow-diameter battery-powered endoscope in sedated and unsedated patients

Background. Esophagoscopy with a portable battery-powered endoscope could provide a safe, inexpensive, and minimally invasive way to screen for Barrett's esophagus or esophageal varices. The use of such an instrument in an unsedated fashion has not been previously evaluated. Methods: Patients referred for an EGD were recruited to undergo an additional examination with the battery-powered endoscope before EGD. In phase 1, (n = 42) patients received conscious sedation before the battery-powered endoscopic examination. In phase 2, (n = 56) patients were not sedated and were given the option of a peroral (n = 43) or transnasal (n = 13) endoscopy. Examiners were blinded to patient history and procedure indications. Esophageal findings, ease of intubation, optical quality, and patient comfort for the battery-powered endoscope and standard EGD were recorded by the endoscopist. Results: Ninety-eight patients (60 men, 38 women, mean age 53 years) were recruited. The sensitivity for detecting Barrett's esophagus, esophageal tumors, and esophageal varices was 54.5%, 66.7%, and 80%, respectively. Ease of intubation and patient comfort as perceived by the endoscopist were not significantly different between the battery-powered endoscope and EGD. Optical quality was ranked as less than 4 (on a 5-point scale with 5 = standard EGD and 1 = poor) in 42% of battery-powered endoscopic examinations. There were no complications. Conclusion: The accuracy of esophageal examination with a 3.1-mm endoscope is substantially inferior to standard EGD. Thus, the battery-powered endoscope would not be useful for screening patients for Barrett's esophagus or varices unless improvements in optical quality and visualization are made.