Benefit of pronase in image quality during EUS

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Premedication in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for higher lesions detection rate has not been well studied so far. This study aimed to confirm whether premedication could improve the detection rate of early cancer or precancerous lesions and mucosal visibility.

METHOD

From July 2015 to December 2015, 7200 participants from 6 centers were screened by endoscopy with one of the 4 following premedications randomly: (1) water (group D); (2) pronase (group A); (3) simethicone (group B); (4) pronase and simethicone (group C). Early cancer and precancerous lesions detection rates were taken as the primary endpoints, and mucosal visibility was taken as the secondary endpoint. They were compared among four groups to determine different premedication effects in terms of different anatomical sites. Trial was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; the registration number is ChiCTR-IOR-17010985.

RESULTS

The upper gastrointestinal overall precancerous lesion detection rates among four groups were 8.7, 8.4, 10.0, and 10.3%, the overall early cancer detection rates were 1.3, 1.4%, 1.5, and 1.6%, both without significant difference (p = 0.138 and 0.878). However, the visibility score distributions between control group (D) and premedication groups (A, B, and C) were all statistically significant, with all anatomical sites p values < 0.001. Subgroup analyses, from 2 centers without screening before, also showed significant difference in esophageal (3.9, 3.3, 4.5, and 8.4% with p = 0.004) and overall (7.0, 5.5, 7.3, and 12.0% with p = 0.004) precancerous lesion detection rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with pronase and simethicone may not increase lesion detection rates but could significantly increase the upper gastrointestinal mucosal visibility.

Catheter probe endoscopic ultrasonography by using cold lubricating jelly-filled method for esophageal subepithelial tumors

Catheter probe endoscopic ultrasonography (C-EUS) by ultrasonographic jelly-filled method has been used to evaluate esophageal subepithelial tumors (SETs). Ultrasonographic jelly is safe on the skin, but its internal safety has not been demonstrated. The jelly stored at room temperature is easily injected into the esophagus through the instrument channel of the endoscope. However, using jelly stored at room temperature remains problematic because the jelly is drained rapidly. We used cold lubricating jelly and an intravenous extension tube to resolve these problems. In this study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of cold lubricating jelly-filled method. The medical records of patients who underwent C-EUS by using water or cold lubricating jelly-filled method for esophageal SETs from March 2013 to September 2016 in Gangneung Asan hospital were reviewed. Clinical characteristics and EUS findings were evaluated retrospectively. Image quality and procedure time between water and cold lubricating jelly-filled method were compared retrospectively. This study included 138 patients (74 males, 64 females) with esophageal SET with a mean age of 57.1 ± 11.1 years. Thirty-four patients had lesions in the upper esophagus, 58 patients had lesions in the middle esophagus, and 46 patients had lesions in the lower esophagus. The EUS diagnoses were leiomyoma (82.6%), hemangioma (4.3%), extrinsic compressive lesion (3.6%), granulosa cell tumor (2.9%), ectopic calcification (1.4%), cyst (1.4%), lipoma (0.7%), varix (0.7%), and inconclusive lesion (2.2%). The mean image score in the cold lubricating jelly filled-method group was higher than that in the water-filled method group (3.2 ± 0.7 vs. 2.8 ± 0.7, P = 0.002). The procedure time in the cold lubricating jelly filled-method group was shorter than that in the water-filled method group (10 minutes 27 seconds ± 4 minutes 22 seconds versus 13 minutes 20 seconds ± 6 minutes 20 seconds, P = 0.045). No procedure-related complication was observed. C-EUS using the cold lubricating jelly-filled method seems to provide better image quality and shorter procedure time compared with C-EUS using the water-filled method.

Effects of premedication with Pronase for endoscopic ultrasound of the stomach: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

To analyze the effects of premedication with Pronase for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examination of the stomach.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized and controlled clinical study. All patients were randomly assigned to either the Pronase group or placebo group. The pretreatment solution was a mixed solution of 20000 U of Pronase and 60 mL sodium bicarbonate solution in the Pronase group, while an equal amount of sodium bicarbonate solution was administered to the placebo group. All operators, image evaluators and experimental recorders in EUS did not participate in the preparation and allocation of pretreatment solution. Two blinded investigators assessed the obscurity scores for the EUS images according to the size of artifacts (including ultrasound images of the gastric cavity and the gastric wall). Differences in imaging quality, the duration of examination and the usage of physiological saline during the examination process between the Pronase group and the control group were compared.

RESULTS

No differences existed in patient demographics between the two groups. For the gastric cavity, the Pronase group had significantly lower mean obscurity scores than the placebo group (1.0476 ± 0.77 vs 1.6129 ± 0.96, respectively, P = 0.000). The mean obscurity scores for the gastric mucosal surface were significantly lower in the Pronase group than the placebo group (1.2063 ± 0.90 vs 1.7581 ± 0.84, respectively, P = 0.001). The average EUS procedure duration for the Pronase group was 11.60 ± 3.32 min, which was significantly shorter than that of the placebo group (13.13 ± 3.81 min, P = 0.007). Less saline was used in the Pronase group than the placebo group, and the difference was significant (417.94 ± 121.38 mL vs 467.42 ± 104.52 mL, respectively, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The group that had Pronase premedication prior to the EUS examination had clearer images than the placebo group. With Pronase premedication, the examination time was shorter, and the amount of saline used during the EUS examination was less.

Efforts to increase image quality during endoscopy: The role of pronase

Clear visualization of the gastrointestinal mucosal surface is essential for thorough endoscopy. An unobstructed assessment can reduce the need for additional time-consuming manipulations such as frequent washing and suction, which tend to prolong total procedure time. However, mucus, foam, and bubbles often hinder clear visibility during endoscopy. Premedication with pronase, a compound of mixed proteolytic enzymes, has been studied in order to improve mucosal visibility during endoscopy. Although its effects differ according to the location in the stomach, premedication with pronase 10 to 20 min before endoscopy significantly improves mucosal visibility without affecting the accuracy of Helicobacter pylori identification. The effects of pronase as premedication also extend to chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, magnifying endoscopy, and endoscopic ultrasonography. In addition, endoscopic flushing with pronase during endoscopy may improve the quantity and the quality of a biopsy to some degree. Although improved mucosal visibility does not necessarily improve clinical outcomes, premedication with pronase may be helpful for increasing the detection rate of early cancers.

Effect of pronase as mucolytic agent on imaging quality of magnifying endoscopy

AIM: To investigate the efficacy of premedication with pronase, a proteolytic enzyme, in improving image quality during magnifying endoscopy.

METHODS: The study was of a blinded, randomized, prospective design. Patients were assigned to groups administered oral premedication of either pronase and simethicone (Group A) or simethicone alone (Group B). First, the gastric mucosal visibility grade (1-4) was determined during conventional endoscopy, and then a magnifying endoscopic examination was conducted. The quality of images obtained by magnifying endoscopy at the stomach and the esophagus was scored from 1 to 3, with a lower score indicating better visibility. The endoscopist used water flushes as needed to obtain satisfactory magnifying endoscopic views. The main study outcomes were the visibility scores during magnifying endoscopy and the number of water flushes.

RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were enrolled, and data from 143 patients (M:F = 90:53, mean age 57.5 years) were analyzed. The visibility score was significantly higher in the stomach following premedication with pronase (73% with a score of 1 in Group A vs 49% in Group B, P < 0.05), but there was no difference in the esophagus visibility scores (67% with a score of 1 in Group A vs 58% in Group B). Fewer water flushes [mean 0.7 ± 0.9 times (range: 0-3 times) in Group A vs 1.9 ± 1.5 times (range: 0-6 times) in Group B, P < 0.05] in the pronase premedication group did not affect the endoscopic procedure times [mean 766 s (range: 647-866 s) for Group A vs 760 s (range: 678-854 s) for Group B, P = 0.88]. The total gastric mucosal visibility score was also lower in Group A (4.9 ± 1.5 vs 8.3 ± 1.8 in Group B, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: The addition of pronase to simethicone premedication resulted in clearer images during magnifying endoscopy and reduced the need for water flushes.