Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Are preparatory interventions or conscious sedation effective? A randomized trial

Table 1 Demographic and clinical data of the patients

	Co-group	Mi-group	Re-group	Vi-group
Patients (n)	62	52	58	54
Gender (m/f)	25/37	9/43a	28/30	28/26
Age (yr; mean ± SD)	37.85 ± 10.44	40.13 ± 10.55	35.20 ± 10.57	39.24 ± 10.57
State anxiety (mean ± SD)	46.66 ± 10.73	54.19 ± 10.89b	46.03 ± 11.42	39.62 ± 9.05
Trait anxiety (mean ± SD)	38.30 ± 7.16	44.26 ± 9.43b	37.22 ± 8.21	38.05 ± 9.63
Duration of EGD (seconds; mean ± SD)	145.88 ± 45.18	157.40 ± 48.09	140.60 ± 35.56	142.96 ± 39.11
Endoscopic findings (No cases):
Normal findings	30	25	26	22
Esophagitis	1	3	6	10
Hiatus Ernia	3	1	2	3
Gastritis or Duodenitis	24	19	19	14
Gastric or duodenal ulcer	2	2	3	3
Cancer	-	-	-	1
Other findings	2	2	2	1

^aP < 0.05,

^bP < 0.001 vs the other three groups.

Table 2 Tolerance to EGD and patients’ and endoscopist’s assessment

	Patients’ assesmentb				Endoscopist’s assessment
	Co-G (n)	Mi-G (n)	Re-G (n)	Vi-G (n)	Co-G (n)	Mi-G (n)	Re-G (n)	Vi-G (n)
Good	27	42b	34	27	45	44b	54	42
Poor	31	10b	23	23	12	7b	4	7
Very bad	4	0b	1	4	5	1b	0	5

Mi-G:

^bP < 0.01 vs the other three groups.

Table 3 Discomfort caused to patients during EGD and patients’ and endoscopist’s assessment (visual analogue scale)

	Co-G (mean ± SD)	Mi-G (mean ± SD)	Re-G (mean ± SD)	Vi-G (mean ± SD)
Patient evaluation	33.01 ± 22.12	21.98 ± 21.60	29.17 ± 22.95	26.12 ± 21.94
Endoscopist evaluation	23.51 ± 22.99	14.17 ± 18.07a	16.43 ± 14.42	20.81 ± 24.04

^aP < 0.05 vs Co-G.

Table 4 Influence of some parameters on degree of discomfort caused by EGD (GLM procedure)

Parameter	Patient’s assessment			Endoscopist’s assessment
	Coefficient	SE	P	Coefficient	SE	P
Gender	-0.251	3.153	0.937	-10.094	2.901	0.001
Age (yr)	-0.621	0.140	0.000	-0.159	0.129	0.219
Groups of patients	-1.138	1.325	0.391	-1.012	1.219	0.407
State anxiety	0.104	0.136	0.445	0.237	0.126	0.060
Time for EGD	0.046	0.039	0.237	-0.057	0.036	0.112
Endoscopic findings	-0.813	1.774	0.647	3.158	1.632	0.054