Effect of premedication on lesion detection rate and visualization of the mucosa during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a multicenter large sample randomized controlled double-blind study

AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam.

METHODS

The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

Chinese national clinical practice guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors in the digestive system in China. Few comprehensive practice guidelines for early gastric cancer in China are currently available. Therefore, we created the Chinese national clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of early gastric cancer.

METHODS

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) was developed in accordance with the World Health Organization's recommended process and with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) in assessing evidence quality. We used the Evidence to Decision framework to formulate clinical recommendations to minimize bias and increase transparency in the CPG development process. We used the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) as reporting and conduct guidelines to ensure completeness and transparency of the CPG.

RESULTS

This CPG contains 40 recommendations regarding the prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of early gastric cancer based on available clinical studies and guidelines. We provide recommendations for the timing of Helicobacter pylori eradication, screening populations for early gastric cancer, indications for endoscopic resection and surgical gastrectomy, follow-up interval after treatment, and other recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

This CPG can lead to optimum care for patients and populations by providing up-to-date medical information. We intend this CPG for widespread adoption to increase the standard of prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of early gastric cancer; thereby, contributing to improving national health care and patient quality of life.

The Effect of Using Premedication of Simethicone/Pronase With or Without Postural Change on Visualization of the Mucosa Before Endoscopy: A Prospective, Double Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the efficacy and safety of preprocedural simethicone (S) and pronase (P) for optimal mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy with sedation. The effect of postural change combined with premedication on mucosal visibility was also examined.

METHODS

The study randomized 496 patients into 8 groups based on the type of premedication provided and whether a postural change occurred. The premedication in the control group was 100 mL of normal saline solution (NS). The remaining 3 intervention groups were administered 100 mL of simethicone alone (S), pronase solution alone (P), and simethicone plus pronase solution (S + P). Each group was classified into subgroups according to whether there was a postural change (PC). The mucosal visibility score (MVS), total mucosal visibility score (TVS), procedure time, water consumption for mucosal cleansing, and proportion of patients with diminutive lesions <5 mm were recorded.

RESULTS

The P and S groups had a significantly better TVS than the NS group (11.86 ± 3.36 in group P vs 14.52 ± 2.57 in group NS, P < 0.001; 12.36 ± 2.93 in group S vs 14.52 ± 2.57 in group NS, P = 0.006). The TVS was better in the P group than in the S group (11.86 ± 3.36 vs 12.36 ± 2.93, P = 0.037). The MVS was significantly better in the esophagus and duodenum and worse in the upper and lower gastric body in the S group than in the P group. The P + S group had a significantly better TVS than the P and S groups (9.81 ± 2.90 in group P + S vs 11.86 ± 3.36 in group P and 12.36 ± 2.93 in group S, respectively, P < 0.001),\ and had a reduced amount of flushing water during the procedure (0 [interquartile range [IQR]: 0-33] mL in group P + S vs 40 [IQR: 0-70] mL in group P, P < 0.01; 0 [IQR: 0-33] mL in group P + S vs 50 [IQR: 20-98] mL in group S, P < 0.001). The TVS was significantly better in the P + S + PC group than in the P + S group (8.44 ± 2.10 vs 9.81 ± 2.90, P = 0.003). The MVS was significantly better in the gastric antrum, fundus, and upper and lower gastric body in the P + S + PC group than in the P + S group. There was no significant difference in the detection rate of diminutive lesions among the different groups during an endoscopic examination ( P > 0.05).

DISCUSSION

The combination of preprocedural administration with simethicone and pronase achieved superior mucosal visualization compared with saline, simethicone, or pronase alone in patients receiving upper endoscopy. Postural change maneuvers performed before endoscopy further improved the mucosal visibility in most parts of the stomach when used with preprocedural simethicone and pronase.

Effect of Premedication With Pronase Before Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to confirm whether premedication with pronase before endoscopy improves mucosal visualization and increases precancerous lesion and cancer lesion detection rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2018 to April 2019, out-patients scheduled for endoscopy from 13 hospitals were screened to be randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to premedication with pronase (group A) and water (group B). The primary endpoint was mucosal visibility scores, and the secondary endpoint was precancerous and cancer lesion detection rates. This trial was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the registration number was ChiCTR1800016853.

RESULTS

Group A showed significantly lower mucosal visibility scores (better mucosal visibility) of esophagus, stomach, and duodenum than group B, with all P -values <0.001. The overall cancer detection rates between group A and group B were 0.83 and 1.08%, and overall detection rates of precancerous and cancer lesion were 4.4 and 4.9%, both without significant difference ( P =1.000 and 0.824). In addition, the flushing volume (milliliter) of group A (10.52±23.41) was less than group B (36.30±52.11) ( P <0.001), and the flushing frequency of group A (0.46±1.01) was fewer than group B (1.62±2.12) ( P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with pronase could achieve better mucosal visibility and decrease flushing frequency and volume, but may not increase lesion detection rates.

Case report: Streptomycin combined with dacronin in painless magnifying endoscopy

RATIONALE

To analyze the effect of streptomyces protease combined with dyclonine in painless magnifying endoscopy.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A total of 100 patients who underwent magnification endoscopy in our hospital from January 2021 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed.

DIAGNOSES

The diagnoses were made by painless magnifying endoscopy and narrow-band imaging combined with pathological findings.

INTERVENTIONS

The patients were divided into the observation group and control group, the observation group was streptomyces protease combined with dyclonine group, and the control group was dyclonine group, 50 cases in each group. The visibility score under gastroscopy was compared between the 2 groups, and the morphological classification of gastric pit and collecting veins was observed. The detection rates of small lesions and early cancer were compared between the 2 groups. The examination time and adverse reactions were compared between the 2 groups.

OUTCOMES

Compared with the control group, the streptomyces protease combined with dyclonine group had better clear visibility and a higher detection rate of small lesions, but there was no significant difference in early cancer detection rate between the 2 groups. The examination time of streptomyces protease combined with dyclonine group was relatively prolonged, but there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the 2 groups.

LESSONS

Streptomyces protease combined with dyclonine plays a certain role in painless magnifying gastroscopy, which can improve the visibility of gastroscopy, improve the detection rate of small lesions, help to find gastric dysplasia and early gastric cancer diagnosis, and does not increase the incidence of adverse reactions.

Umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of dysplasia and cancer at upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background and study aims Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established quality indicators. We conducted an umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of UGI cancer and dysplasia. Methods Bibliographic databases were searched up to December 2021 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy, detection rates or the association of endoscopy or endoscopist-related factors with UGI cancer or dysplasia detection were included. AMSTAR2 and JBI checklists were used to assess systematic review and primary study quality. Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and findings are summarized narratively. Results Eight systematic reviews and nine primary studies were included. Image enhancement, especially narrow band imaging, had high diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia and early gastric cancer (pooled sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (0.97-0.98)). Higher detection rates with longer endoscopy examination times were reported in three studies, but no difference was observed in one study. Endoscopist biopsy rate was associated with increased gastric cancer detection (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.9). Early esophageal cancer (0.17% vs 0.14%, P =0.04) and gastric cancer (0.16% vs 0.12%, P =0.02) detection rates were higher with propofol sedation compared to no sedation. Endoscopies performed by trained endoscopists on dedicated Barrett's surveillance lists had higher detection rates (8% vs 3%, P <0.001). The neoplasia detection rate during diagnostic endoscopies for Barrett's esophagus was 7% (95% CI 4%-10%). Conclusions Image enhancement use, longer examination times, biopsy rate and propofol sedation are potential quality indicators for UGI endoscopy. Neoplasia detection rate and dedicated endoscopy lists are additional potential quality indicators for Barrett's esophagus.

Inadequate gastric preparation and its associated factors for magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy

Goals: To explore factors associated with inadequate gastric preparation for MCE. Background: Factors associated with inadequate gastric preparation for magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE) remains unclear. Study: Data of patients who underwent MCE from June 2021 to July 2022 were prospectively collected. The gastric cleanliness score (GCS) of the six stomach regions (gastric cardia, fundus, body, angulus, antrum, and pylorus) was recorded. Patients with GCS score ≥18 were defined as the adequate preparation. Factors related to inadequate gastric preparation were analyzed using a logistic regression model with estimated odds ratios (OR). Results: The mean GCS score of 211 patients was 17.01 ± 2.82. In the multivariable analysis, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use (OR 3.57; 95% CI 1.69-7.95; p < 0.01) and premedication time after administering simethicone <30 min (OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.10-7.39; p = 0.03) were independent risk factors for inadequate gastric preparation. Comparing the gastric cleanliness of different locations, the median GCS of the lower stomach [10.00, IQR (9.50, 11.00)] was significantly higher than that of the upper stomach [7.00, IQR (6.00, 8.00)] (p <0.001). Conclusion: PPI use and inadequate premedication time (<30 min) may reduce the quality of gastric preparation for MCE. The type, dose, duration of medication, and discontinuation time of PPIs was well worth further exploration. Appropriate control of the type and time of premedication may be the key to improving overall gastric cleanliness.

Pre-procedure oral administration of pronase improves efficacy of lugol chromoendoscopy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma screening: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chromoendoscopy with Lugol's staining is used to screen for early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Its efficacy is greatly limited by unstandardized defoaming preparation. This study aimed to confirm whether pre-procedure oral administration of pronase could improve the diagnostic performance of Lugol chromoendoscopy in high-risk patients being screened for early ESCC.

METHODS

A total of 955 patients at-risk were prospectively recruited for screening for ESCC. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups with or without (control group) pronase administration. Endoscopic diagnosis of early ESCC was based on the presence of pink-color sign in Lugol's unstained area, and a biopsy was routinely conducted if the Lugol's unstained lesion was larger than 0.5 cm. The early cancer detection rate was used as the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Pre-procedure oral administration of pronase improved mucosal visibility during Lugol chromoendoscopy (P = 0.008). There were no differences in the number of Lugol's unstained lesions between the 2 groups (23.27% [111/477] vs. 25.11% [120/478], P = 0.508). Meaningfully, the detection rate of ESCC (confirmed by histopathology) was significantly higher in the pronase group than in the control group (27.03% [30/111] vs. 17.50% [21/120], P = 0.041), as well as the detection rate of lesions with pink-color sign during chromoendoscopy (35.14% [39/111] vs. 13.33% [16/120], P < 0.001). The diagnostic performance of Lugol chromoendoscopy had improved with the use of pronase (area under the curve = 0.85 vs. 0.69, P = 0.019), accompanied by an increased sensitivity (86.67% vs. 47.62%, P = 0.004). There was no difference in the adverse events between the 2 groups (P = 0.793).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-procedure oral administration of pronase significantly increased the detection rate of early ESCC and optimized the diagnostic performance of Lugol chromoendoscopy, which should be recommended during routine endoscopic screening for early ESCC in high-risk patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pronase improves efficacy of Lugol chromoendoscopy screening on esophageal cancerous lesions (NCT02030769).

Minimizing the Risks of Simethicone in Endoscope Reprocessing

This statement was written under the auspices of the World Gastroenterology Organization's Guidelines Committee. The authors are members of the Review Team of the WGO Endoscope Disinfection Guideline and have experience in endoscopy, endoscope reprocessing, and microbiology, including biofilms. During the preparation of the WGO Update on Endoscope Disinfection Guidelines, concerns about simethicone on endoscope channel surfaces compromising cleaning and disinfection were raised. Publications on simethicone, including modes of delivery, effectiveness, and risks, have been reviewed. The paper was written as a companion to the new guidelines with a focus on minimizing the risks of simethicone in endoscope reprocessing.

Chinese integrated guideline on the management of gastric precancerous conditions and lesions

The standardized diagnosis and management of gastric precancerous conditions and lesions are important to prevent gastric cancer. This guideline, created by 5 traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine associations, based on the current morbidity and diagnosis and treatment of gastric precancerous conditions and lesions, provides specific key points and strategies for diagnosis and treatment in the following five aspects: definition and epidemiology, diagnosis and stage, surveillance, treatment and efficacy evaluation. It is hoped that these aspects, assessed by integrating Western medicine and traditional Chinese medicine and involving multidisciplinary participation, will play a guiding role in clinical diagnosis and treatment and achieve effective secondary prevention of gastric cancer.

Premedication with simethicone for improving the quality of gastric mucosal visualization: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims  Saliva, bubbles, or mucus can limit gastric mucosal visualization (GMV), increasing the risk of missed lesions such as gastric cancer. Several studies using endoscopy photodocumentation-based scores have reported increased quality of GMV when mucolytic and/or defoaming agents are administered. This single-center, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial aimed to evaluate whether simethicone administration could improve GMV. Patients and methods  Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 200 mg of simethicone (Group A) or placebo (Group B). Two independent endoscopists reviewed the entire video recording from each examination to assess the quality of GMV. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate GMV, defined as the percentage of patients in each group with a video score scale < 7 based on gastric visualization of five gastric landmarks. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and side effects. Results  A total of 110 consecutive outpatients were randomly assigned to one of the two study groups (11 were excluded for various reasons). For the primary endpoint, 32 patients (61.5 %) in group A achieved adequate GMV compared to one of 47 (2.1 %) in group B (odds ratio [95 % confidence interval]: 73.6 [9.4-576.6]; P  < 0.001). Median procedure time did not differ between the groups ( P  = 0.55), and no differences were detected in patient satisfaction ( P  = 0.18) or side effects ( P  = 0.58). No serious adverse events were documented. Conclusions  Premedication with simethicone before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy significantly improves the quality of GMV without affecting the duration of the examination, patient satisfaction, and the rate of side effects.

Diagnostic Value of Endoscopic Narrow-Band Imaging Technique in Early Gastric Cancer and Precancerous Lesions

Objective

To investigate the diagnostic value of endoscopic narrow-band imaging technique in early gastric cancer and precancerous lesions.

Methods

A total of 100 patients with recurrent upper gastrointestinal symptoms in our hospital from January 2017 to January 2022 were selected and divided into group A and group B according to the random number table method, with 50 cases in each group. Group A received white light endoscopy, and group B received narrow-band imaging technology combined with endoscopy. Narrow-band imaging combined with magnifying endoscopy was used to stain the area with suspicious mucosal lesions with indigo carmine and magnified observation.

Results

The endoscopic image clarity of group B was significantly better than that of group A in terms of lesion outline, gastric pit, and microvascular morphology (P < 0.05). There were 10 cases of early gastric cancer, 18 cases of benign lesions, and 9 cases of gastric cancer (nonearly stage); 17 cases of precancerous lesions, 12 cases of early gastric cancer, 13 cases of benign lesions, and 6 cases of gastric cancer (nonearly stage) were diagnosed by ordinary white light endoscopy. Pathological results confirmed that among the 50 patients in group B, there were 15 cases of precancerous lesions, 11 cases of early gastric cancer, 17 cases of benign lesions, and 7 cases of gastric cancer (nonearly stage). Among the 50 patients in group A, 16 were precancerous lesions, 11 were early gastric cancer, 15 were benign lesions, and 8 were gastric cancer (non early stage). In the diagnosis of precancerous lesions and early gastric cancer, the diagnostic consistency, sensitivity, and specificity of group B were better than those of group A (P < 0.05); NBI combined with endoscopy in the diagnosis of precancerous lesions and early gastric cancer (kappa = 0.860, kappa = 0.883) was more consistent with pathological diagnosis than common white light endoscopy (kappa = 0.433, kappa = 0.535).

Conclusion

The value of narrow-band imaging technology combined with endoscopy in the diagnosis of precancerous lesions and early gastric cancer is better than that of ordinary white light endoscopy, and it can be widely used in clinical practice.

Interval gastric cancer: A call to attentiveness and action

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Endoscopy is the most effective method for identifying gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Interval gastric cancer (IGC) is GAC that is diagnosed 2-3 years after a normal endoscopy. Its characteristics are unknown in the Colombian environment. The clinical, histopathologic, and endoscopic characteristics were evaluated, along with the presentation rate, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and IGC survival rate, and compared with other types of GAC.

METHODS

A retrospective, analytic study was conducted on a prospective cohort. It evaluated 513 patients with GAC treated at our institution, within the time frame of January 2012 and June 2018. The patients had endoscopic diagnosis of GAC and endoscopy within the past three years that was negative for tumor.

RESULTS

A total of 513 patients diagnosed with GAC were evaluated. Forty-two of the patients had IGC (8.2%): 9 early lesions and 33 advanced lesions (79%). The IGCs were smaller (31 vs. 41 mm; P < .01), as well as flatter and more depressed (P < .01). There was no association with PPI use, but there was an association with a history of gastrectomy and anastomosis (P = .02), as well as the absence of red flags (P < .003). The most frequent locations were the gastric body (52%) and the antrum (26%). Overall two-year survival was similar between IGC and GAC (37.1 vs. 39.3%, P = .72).

CONCLUSION

A total of 8.2% of recently diagnosed GAC were cases of IGC. The presence of anastomosis and the absence of red flags were related to IGC. Overall survival was poor and there were no differences from the other types of GAC detected.

Quality indicators in esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been used to diagnose a wide variety of upper gastrointestinal diseases. In particular, EGD is used to screen high-risk subjects of gastric cancer. Quality control of EGD is important because the diagnostic rate is examiner-dependent. However, there is still no representative quality indicator that can be uniformly applied in EGD. There has been growing awareness of the importance of quality control in improving EGD performance. Therefore, we aimed to review the available and emerging quality indicators for diagnostic EGD.

Premedication with reformulated simethicone and sodium bicarbonate improves mucosal visibility during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial

Background

The reformulated simethicone emulsion from Berlin Chemical AG might develop white flocculate precipitate covering the gastric mucosa when used before esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We aim to investigate whether combining the reformulated simethicone emulsion with 5% sodium bicarbonate solution could prevent the development of white precipitate and improve visibility during EGD.

Methods

Our clinical study involved 523 patients. They were randomly assigned to two groups. In Group A, patients received a warm solution containing 30 ml 5% sodium bicarbonate solution and 15 ml reformulated simethicone emulsion. In Group B, patients received 45 ml 40 °C lukewarm water. Visibility scores were recorded and analyzed. Flushes, volume of flush water, overall time taken for EGD and complications during or after the procedure were also recorded.

Results

We found that no white precipitate was observed during EGD in Group A. Moreover, visibility scores in Group A were significantly lower (P < 0.01). Patients in Group A had fewer flushes (P < 0.01) and smaller volume of flush water (P < 0.01). In addition, the overall time taken for the EGD procedure was significantly shorter in Group A (P < 0.01). The percentage of patients who had no adverse response was significantly higher in Group A than in Group B (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Premedication with a mixed solution of 15 ml reformulated simethicone emulsion and 30 ml 5% sodium bicarbonate solution can prevent the development of white precipitate, substantially enhancing mucosal visibility safely.

Trial registration: The registered name of the trial is “Efficacy of using premedication with reformulated simethicone emulsion during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy examination”. Its Current Controlled Trials number is ChiCTR1900021689. Its date of registration is 11 September 2019. Retrospectively registered, http://www.medresman.org.cn/uc/sindex.aspx.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-021-01623-w.

Quality in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the detection and surveillance of gastric cancer precursor lesions: Position paper of AEG, SEED and SEAP

This position paper, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología [Spanish Association of Gastroenterology], the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva [Spanish Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society] and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica [Spanish Anatomical Pathology Society], aims to establish recommendations for performing an high quality upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the screening of gastric cancer precursor lesions (GCPL) in low-incidence populations, such as the Spanish population. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates different measures to improve the quality of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in this setting and makes recommendations on how to evaluate and treat the identified lesions. We recommend that upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for surveillance of GCPL should be performed by endoscopists with adequate training, administering oral premedication and use of sedation. To improve the identification of GCPL, we recommend the use of high definition endoscopes and conventional or digital chromoendoscopy and, for biopsies, NBI should be used to target the most suspicious areas of intestinal metaplasia. Regarding the evaluation of visible lesions, the risk of submucosal invasion should be evaluated with magnifying endoscopes and endoscopic ultrasound should be reserved for those with suspected deep invasion. In lesions amenable to endoscopic resection, submucosal endoscopic dissection is considered the technique of choice.

Does Premedication with Mucolytic Agents Improve Mucosal Visualization during Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Gastric Cancer (GC) is the fourth most common malignancy worldwide and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality for both sexes. The gold standard for diagnosing GC is oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD). Excess mucus on the gastric mucosa impairs the detection of early GC.

Aim

To synthesize available evidence of the effect of premedication with a mucolytic agent among adults undergoing elective nontherapeutic OGD, compared to placebo or other mucolytic agents, on mucosal visibility during OGD.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the mean difference in total mucosal visibility score (TMVS) between the pooled mucolytic agents and control. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine the mean TMVS difference for simethicone versus control and the impact of different timings and doses of mucolytic premedication.

Results

13 studies, involving 11,086 patients, including 6178 females (55.7%), with a mean age of 53.4 were identified and 6 of these were brought forward to meta-analysis. This revealed a mean difference of -2.69 (95% CI -3.5, -1.88) in total mucosal visibility scores (TMVS) between the pooled mucolytic agents and control. For simethicone, the mean difference was -2.68 (95% CI -4.94, -0.43). A simethicone dose of 133 mg was most effective with a mean difference of -4.22 (95% CI -5.11, -3.33). Assessing timing of administration across all mucolytic agents revealed a mean difference for the >20 minutes group of -3.68 (95% CI -4.77, -2.59). No adverse events were reported in any included trials.

Conclusions

Regular use of premedication with mucolytic agents prior to routine OGD is associated with improved TMVS with no reported adverse events.

Quality Systems Approach for Endoscope Reprocessing: You Don't Know What You Don't Know!

Several factors affect the efficacy of endoscope reprocessing, including human factors, inadequate cleaning, simethicone residuals, moisture in channels during storage, and biofilm or buildup biofilm formation. These factors all contribute to contamination of patient-ready endoscopes that may contribute to transmission of microorganisms resulting in infection and/or colonization. This article reviews monitoring as part of a quality management system that includes manual cleaning, dry storage, and culture to detect endoscope contamination. The published data for rapid tests that detect organic residuals and adenosine triphosphate to monitor manual cleaning are reviewed.

Quality indicators in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy contributes a major clinical service with consistently growing demand around the world. Its utility corresponds to varying epidemiological issues throughout the globe, with cancer screening and surveillance being of the utmost priority. Despite high accuracy in neoplasia detection, UGI endoscopy remains a highly operator-dependent procedure, characterized by a substantial rate of missed pathology. Despite an overall lack of high-quality performance measures, there is an increased level of awareness about the need for quality control of this procedure, which is reflected in several guidelines and position statements published in recent years. It is widely recognized that quality assessment should go beyond mere technical aspects of the examination, and include both pre- and post-procedural factors. By this means, quality control encompasses the entire patient experience with the health care provider, from appropriate indication and physical assessment, through high-quality endoscopy service, to appropriate follow up and patient satisfaction. This article aims to review the available and emerging quality metrics for UGI endoscopy, taken mostly from Western endoscopy societies, with references to Asian recommendations where appropriate. The paper is limited solely to diagnostic UGI endoscopy and does not include performance measures for therapeutic procedures.

A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing simethicone, N-acetylcysteine, sodium bicarbonate and peppermint for visualization in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Early cancer detection is crucial in improving the patients' quality of life and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGD) plays a key role in this detection. Many clearing mechanisms may be applied to create good endoscopic visualizations for the upper gastrointestinal tract using mucolytic agents, antifoaming agents, proteolytic enzymes and neutralizers. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of simethicone, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), sodium bicarbonate and peppermint as pre-medications for visualization of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS

This study was a single center prospective randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups. Group A: water; Group B: water with simethicone; Group C: water with simethicone plus NAC 600 mg; Group D: water with simethicone, NAC, sodium bicarbonate and peppermint.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients were enrolled and evaluated in this study. Total visibility score (TVS) of Groups A, B, C, and D were 13.4 ± 1.86, 10.5 ± 1.45, 7.15 ± 0.98 and 6.4 ± 1.43, respectively. Group D showed lower TVS than other groups. The procedural durations of Groups C and D were significantly shorter than Group A. The volume of solution for mucosal cleansing of Groups C and D was significantly lower than Groups A and B.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of simethicone plus NAC is safe, improves endoscopic visualization and requires a minimal amount of mucosal cleansing solution. The addition of sodium bicarbonate and peppermint further improved visualization for the upper and lower gastric body. Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) with a reference number; TCTR20190501002.

Impact of wet storage and other factors on biofilm formation and contamination of patient-ready endoscopes: a narrative review

The 2019 U.S. Food and Drug Administration report indicates that the clinical studies undertaken by the 3 main GI endoscope manufacturers demonstrate 5.4% of patient-ready duodenoscopes remain culture positive for high-concern organisms. The root causes of this persistent contamination are poorly understood. The objectives of this review include summarizing (1) the impact of inadequate manual cleaning and inadequate drying during storage on the formation of build-up biofilm in endoscope channels, (2) the impact of defoaming agents used during patient procedures on drying efficacy, (3) the data showing the importance of build-up biofilm on persistent microbial survival, and (4) the potential impact of implementation of a quality systems approach in GI endoscopy reprocessing.

The effect of using simethicone with or without N-acetylcysteine before gastroscopy: A meta-analysis and systemic review

BACKGROUND/AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of simethicone with or without N-acetylcysteine (NAC) as premedications before gastroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane library and Web of Science database for randomized clinical controlled trials regarding simethicone ± NAC as oral drinking agents before gastroscopy. Statistical software RevMan5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Ten randomized clinical trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were further pooled into a meta-analysis, which included 5,750 patients. The rate of positive findings in simethicone plus NAC group was higher than that in water group (risk ratio [RR] =1.31, 95%CI: 1.12-1.53, P = 0.0006) with high level of evidence. There was no significant difference on the rate of positive findings when comparing simethicone with simethicone plus NAC (RR = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.90-1.16, P = 0.71) and with water (RR = 1.13, 95%CI: 0.82-1.55, P = 0.46), respectively. Simethicone plus NAC showed better total mucosal visibility score than simethicone alone (MD = -0.14 (-0.25, -0.03), P = 0.01) without obvious heterogeneity. Both simethicone plus NAC and simethicone alone offer more benefit than water. The procedure time in simethicone group was shorter than that in water group (MD = -1.23 (-1.51, -0.96), P < 0.00001). Regarding adverse events, there was no significant difference in simethicone and water group (RR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.2-1.0, P = 0.05, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

As premedication of gastroscopy, simethicone plus NAC offers more benefit on positive findings and total mucosal visibility score.