Transnasal Endoscopy for Children and Adolescents With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Single-Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Transnasal endoscopy (TNE) has been introduced in the care of pediatric patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) who require repeated esophagoscopies. TNE, as compared to conventional endoscopy, is less invasive and avoids sedation or anesthesia allowing for frequent assessments of the esophageal mucosa when making management decisions. The aim of this study is to review our early experience with TNE. Methods: We extracted data from all patients with EoE who underwent TNE at UH Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio from December 2018 to April 2021. We assessed total visit time, procedure time, success rate, and complications. Data are presented as percentages or medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs). Comparisons were made using Chi-square (and Fisher’s exact) test for categorical data, Mann-Whitney test and the unpaired t -test for non-normally distributed and normally distributed data, respectively. Results: Thirty-three patients underwent 65 TNE procedures during our study period. The male-to-female ratio was 4.5:1 and median age was 13 years (IQR: 10 - 15 years; range: 4 - 20 years). Sixty-three (96.9%) of 65 procedures were completed. Distraction methods were used in all procedures (virtual reality goggles in 19.3% and television in 80.7%). Isolated elevated blood pressure (BP) measurements prior to the procedure were more frequent in those undergoing TNE as compared to sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (P = 0.04). We also calculated the heart rate (HR) for patients undergoing TNE and sedated upper endoscopy; no difference was noted (P = 0.71). Only minor adverse events occurred with TNE: nosebleed (n = 1), pre-syncope (n = 1), and pain (n = 4). None of the patients who underwent a sedated upper endoscopy developed an event. Two TNE procedures were not completed due to an inability to traverse the upper esophageal sphincter. Conclusions: We demonstrate TNE is an efficient and well-tolerated means of monitoring patients with EoE. Various straight forward distraction methods may contribute to the successful completion of the procedure. The safety as compared to conventional esophagoscopy requires large multicenter studies. Gastroenterol Res. 2022;15(4):155-161 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1535
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".