Comparison Between Intubating and Not Intubating Pediatric Patients for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Background There are wide array of methods in providing deep sedation or general anesthesia to pediatric patients having esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDs). It can range from intravenous sedation, insufflation, propofol sedation, and endotracheal intubation with general anesthesia. Some studies found that not intubating pediatric patients for EGDs were associated with more complications than intubating them. There is still controversy whether intubating is safer than not intubating EGD pediatric patients. Thus, we compared intubating versus not intubating pediatric patients undergoing EGDs. MethodsAfter getting IRB approval, a retrospective chart review was performed on EGDs performed during a one year time period. Patients included had EGDs, were between 2 and 18 years old, ASA I or II, and had a BMI less than 30. We included 200 subjects who were intubated during EGDs and 200 subjects who were not intubated during EGDs. Comparisons between the groups included adverse events such as nausea or vomiting, aspiration, laryngospasm, sore throat, dysphagia, and respiratory depression. Total surgical time, anesthesia time before turnover to surgeon, time to recovery, and time to discharge was also compared. ResultsThere was no significant difference in adverse outcomes between the two groups. The only variable that was statistically significant (p< .05) was the anesthesia time before turnover to surgeon (TOTS), with the time to recovery being shorter in the not intubated group compared to the intubated group.ConclusionsThere was not a higher incidence of complication in patients who were not intubating compared to the patients intubated.