Efficacy of simethicone and N-acetylcysteine as premedication in improving visibility during upper endoscopy

Simethicone use in drug-induced sleep endoscopy improves visibility

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of simethicone, a defoaming agent, on improving visibility during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

METHODS

The study was a retrospective case-series study on patients with OSA who failed positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment. Patient parameters were recorded including age, BMI, neck and abdominal circumference, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). Comparisons were made between DISE procedures performed with and without the administration of simethicone. Visibility during DISE was independently graded by two surgeons, and inter-rater reliability was assessed.

RESULTS

Simethicone significantly improved DISE visibility (p = 0.03). "Best visibility" was achieved in 55% of cases with simethicone compared to 27% without simethicone (p = 0.02). Sub-analysis showed that only simethicone administration had a significant effect on visibility (p = 0.02). Inter-rater reliability between the grading surgeons was strong (Cohen-Kappa score 0.7, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that simethicone enhances DISE visibility for OSA surgical planning. Further research should explore optimizing simethicone administration timing and the potential clinical implications for surgical outcomes and patient care.

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.

Pre-medication with simethicone and N-acetyl cysteine for improving mucosal visibility during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Diagnostic performance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) may be compromized due to adherent mucus and foam. In this study, we aimed at assessing the impact of premedication on mucosal visibility during endoscopy.

METHODS

This is a double-blinded (patient and investigator), randomized trial conducted at a tertiary care centre. Patients were randomized into four groups: A (water), B (simethicone [S]), C (N-acetyl cysteine [NAC]), D (S + NAC). Premedication solutions were administered 10-30 minutes before endoscopy and mucosal visibility graded from 1 (best) to 4 (worst) (1 best, 4 worst). Total mucosal visibility scores (TMVS) from six sites ranged from 6 (best) to 24 (worst) points. The primary outcome of study was comparison of TMVS between simethicone and combination (S + NAC) premedication groups. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and impact of endoscopy timing on TMVS.

RESULTS

Total 800 patients (39 years, 68.8% males) were randomized into four groups. Median TMVS were significantly lower in groups B (7 [6-8]) and D (8 [6-9]) as compared to A (11 [9-13]) and C (10 [8-12]). Proportion of cases with adequate gastric mucosal visibility (score < 7) was 26% in group A, 71% in group B, 36% in group C and 79% in group D. There was no difference in TMVS in groups A and C (p = 0.137). TMVS were significantly lower in late (> 20-30 minutes) vs. early (10-20 minutes) endoscopy sub-group (8 [7-11] vs, 9 ([7-11], p = 0.001). However, TMVS were similar between group B and group D in early endoscopy group (p = 0.451). There was no significant difference in the lesion detection rate among the different premedication drugs (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with simethicone or combination (simethicone and NAC) significantly improves mucosal visibility during EGD. If early endoscopy is indicated, simethicone provides similar mucosal visibility and may be an effective alternative to combined premedication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05951712.

Optimal timing of simethicone administration prior to upper endoscopy: A multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims Simethicone is useful as premedication for upper endoscopy because of its antifoaming effects. We aimed to evaluate the effect of timing of simethicone administration on mucosal visibility. Patients and methods In this multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study, patients scheduled for upper endoscopy were randomized to receive 40 mg simethicone at the following time points prior to the procedure: 20 to 30 minutes (early group), 0 to 10 minutes (late group) or 20 mg simethicone at both time points (split-dose group). Images were taken from nine predefined locations in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum before endoscopic flushing. Each image was scored on mucosal visibility by three independent endoscopists on a 4-point scale (lower scores indicating better visibility), with adequate mucosal visibility defined as a score ≤ 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients with adequate total mucosal visibility (TMV), reached if all median subscores for each location were ≤ 2. Results A total of 386 patients were included (early group: 132; late group: 128; split-dose group: 126). Percentages of adequate TMV were 55%, 42%, and 61% in the early, late, and split-dose group, respectively ( P < 0.01). Adequate TMV was significantly higher in the split-dose group compared to the late group ( P < 0.01), but not compared to the early group ( P = 0.29). Differences between groups were largest in the stomach, where percentages of adequate mucosal visibility were higher in the early (68% vs 53%, P = 0.03) and split-dose group (69% vs 53%, P = 0.02) compared to the late group. Conclusions Mucosal visibility can be optimized with early simethicone administration, either as a single administration or in a split-dose regimen.

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.

Administration of maximum dose of mucolytic solution before upper endoscopy - a double-blind, randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to demonstrate that an administration of mucolytic solution with a maximum dose of simethicone and n -acetylcysteine before upper endoscopy improves mucosal visibility compared to a group without administration of mucolytic solution or water.

METHODS

This study was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized into four groups, with the administration of 100 ml of water + 600 mg n -acetylcysteine + 400 mg simethicone, 100 ml of water + 400 mg n -acetylcysteine + 20 mg simethicone, 100 ml of water, and without any water or mucolytic solution. During the examination, a total of 10 images were taken in the defined areas. The overall visibility score was given by the sum of the 0-5 scores of the five areas and was assessed by the endoscopist performing the procedure and the blinded endoscopists using static images.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients were randomized. The group of patients did not differ in age, sex distribution, and indications significantly. The overall visibility score as assessed by the endoscopist performing the procedure was significantly higher in the group with the maximum dose of mucolytic solution compared to the group without solution or water (18.9 ± 2.9 vs. 16.6 ± 3.3, P  = 0.023). This difference was not evident by the blinded evaluation of static photographs.

CONCLUSION

Administration of mucolytic solution with a maximum dose of n -acetylcysteine and simethicone before upper endoscopy improved mucosal visibility in the upper gastrointestinal tract compared with the group without any preparation while evaluated by performing endoscopist.

Endoscopic Imaging for the Diagnosis of Neoplastic and Pre-Neoplastic Conditions of the Stomach

Gastric cancer is an aggressive disease with low long-term survival rates. An early diagnosis is essential to offer a better prognosis and curative treatment. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is the main tool for the screening and diagnosis of patients with gastric pre-neoplastic conditions and early lesions. Image-enhanced techniques such as conventional chromoendoscopy, virtual chromoendoscopy, magnifying imaging, and artificial intelligence improve the diagnosis and the characterization of early neoplastic lesions. In this review, we provide a summary of the currently available recommendations for the screening, surveillance, and diagnosis of gastric cancer, focusing on novel endoscopy imaging technologies.

Quality indicators in the endoscopic detection of gastric cancer

Gastroscopy is the reference standard for the diagnosis of gastric cancer, but it is operator-dependent and associated with missed gastric cancer. The proliferation of gastroscopic examinations, increasingly for the screening and detection of subtle premalignant lesions, has motivated scrutiny of quality in gastroscopy. The concept of a high-quality endoscopic examination for the detection of superficial gastric neoplasia has been defined by expert guidelines to improve mucosal visualization, engender a systematic examination process and detect superficial neoplasia. This review discusses the evidence supporting the components of a high-quality diagnostic gastroscopic examination in relation to the detection of gastric cancer, and their potential role as procedural quality indicators to drive a structured improvement in clinically meaningful outcomes.

Administration of mucolytic solution before upper endoscopy - double-blind, monocentric, randomized study

AIMS

Sufficient visibility of the mucosa during upper endoscopy is crucial for successful diagnosis, especially for early neoplastic lesions. Data documenting the effect of administration of mucolytic solution prior to gastroscopy in order to improve mucosal visibility are limited in Europe. The aim of the study was to assess the score of mucosal visibility in the upper gastrointestinal tract after administration of the mucolytic solution defined by us.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a monocentric, double-blind, randomized study involving 134 patients indicated for diagnostic upper endoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three arms, with mucolytic solution (100 mL water + 400 mg N-acetylcysteine + 20 mg simethicone), without the solution , and with 100 mL pure water. During the examination, 11 photographs were taken in defined areas. The visibility score was given by the sum of the score 0-5 from 5 defined localities evaluated by a blinded endoscopist and subsequently by two blinded endoscopists. Other parameters monitored were examination time and a semiquantitative evaluation of residual gastric fluid.

RESULTS

The basic characteristics of the group (sex, age, indications for examination) were comparable between arms. The visibility score was similar in all arms - 17.4 ± 1.9 vs. 17.0 ± 2.0 vs. 17.6 ± 1.8 (P=0.32). The examination time and the amount of residual fluid in the stomach were comparable in all arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of the mucolytic solution in our study did not increase the mucosal visibility score in the esophagus, stomach and duodenum.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02967094.

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.

Prospective cohort study to evaluate premedication with simethicone and n-acetilcysteine for upper diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

The use of premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is not widely established in western countries. The primary aim of the study was to compare gastric visibility according to the total visibility score (TVS). The secondary aim was to assess complications, diagnostic yield, endoscopic procedure time, sedation dose and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A single center prospective cohort study was performed of consecutive adults undergoing an UGE in the afternoon working shift. After completing enrolment in the control group, patients were administered 200 mg simethicone and 500 mg N-acetylcysteine diluted in 100 ml of water >15 minutes before the procedure. All procedures were recorded and a single, blinded endoscopist evaluated the TVS after recruitment of both cohorts. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Spanish translation of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire.

RESULTS

205 patients were included in the study, 103 females (50.2%) with a median age of 54.8-years (IQR: 41.2-65.2). 104 were enrolled to the control group and 101 to the intervention group. Patients receiving premedication presented a higher rate of adequate (74.3% vs 45.2; difference 95% CI: 16,3-41,9%, p<0.001) and excellent gastric visibility (23.8% vs 7.7%; difference 95% CI: 6,3-25,8%, p=0.002). Propofol dose was similar, although the median procedure time was lower in the group of no intervention [5 (IQR: 4-7) vs 6 minutes (IQR: 5-7); p=0.03]. Procedure related adverse events were similar, except that patient without premedication experienced more nausea episodes. Major and minor endoscopic findings and the satisfaction questionnaire showed no differences between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving premedication with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine had a better gastric visibility score, without any increase in adverse events or affecting the patients' satisfaction.

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.

Simethicone and N-acetyl cysteine combination as premedication before esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Double-blind randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims  Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), the most common method used for diagnosing upper gastrointestinal diseases, is often limited by the presence of foam and mucous. Thus, this study was designed to detect whether the combination of simethicone with N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) as premedication before EGD improves mucosal visualization. Patients and methods  A total of 768 consenting patients were enrolled in this prospective, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial in four groups (A: simethicone + N-acetyl cysteine; B: simethicone alone; C: NAC alone; and D: placebo). After 20 minutes of consuming the corresponding solution, EGD was done and multiple images were obtained from the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum. Based on the various images obtained, the study parameters were calculated. Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) was used to analyze the results using Kruskal-Wallis with the Bonferroni correction method. Results  The study population consisted of 57 % men and the mean age was 44.18 years. Each group was randomized with 192 participants. Group A (combination of simethicone + NAC) premedication had the lowest total mucosal visibility score of 8.31, a significantly lower score for mucous/bubbles obscuring the vision, and less time to complete the procedure. Also, 81 % of the participants in group A did not require flushing to clear the mucous/bubbles. There were no side effects due to this premedication in any of the groups. Conclusions  Using simethicone and NAC combined for premedication may improve the quality of EGD.

Comparing N-acetylcysteine with sodium thiosulfate for relieving symptoms caused by Lugol's iodine chromoendoscopy: a randomized, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lugol's iodine chromoendoscopy is an important method to detect esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Sodium thiosulfate solution (STS) has been used to neutralize iodine after Lugol's chromoendoscopy; however, it is not available in many medical centers. The aim of the current study was to assess the efficacy of N-acetylcysteine solution (NAC) for relieving symptoms caused by Lugol's iodine chromoendoscopy.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either STS or NAC after spraying Lugol's iodine solution on the esophagus. The neutralizing effects for residual iodine in the esophagus and gastric mucous pool were observed. The primary endpoint was the intensity of retrosternal pain and/or heartburn measured by a visual analog scale (VAS) score 30 minutes after chromoendoscopy. Secondary endpoints were the rate of patients with any adverse symptom, rate of moderate to severe retrosternal discomfort occurring, and heart rate variability between time points before and after chromoendoscopy.

RESULTS

The neutralization rates for residual iodine between the NAC and STS groups were not significantly different (P > .999). The difference of median VAS scores between the NAC and STS groups 30 minutes after chromoendoscopy was .0 (P = .719; 95% confidence interval, .0-.0), and the 95% confidence interval higher limit was .0, which was less than our prespecified margin of .5, concluding an noninferiority of NAC with regard to STS. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the rate of patients with any adverse symptom, rate of moderate to severe retrosternal discomfort, or heart rate variability at 5 minutes or 30 minutes after chromoendoscopy.

CONCLUSION

As a very easily accessible reagent in clinical circumstances, NAC can also alleviate mucosal irritation symptoms induced by Lugol's chromoendoscopy at similar efficacy as STS and can be routinely recommended. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04764643.).

Scoring system assessing mucosal visibility of upper gastrointestinal tract: The POLPREP scale

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The proper visibility of mucosa during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is crucial for the detection of early upper gastrointestinal tract lesions. In contrast to colonoscopy, no validated scoring system for the assessment of upper gastrointestinal mucosal cleanliness has been developed so far. The aim of the study was to create and validate standardized grading system (POLPREP) to assess the mucosal cleanliness during EGD.

METHODS

To assess the visibility of mucosa during EGD, 4-point scale was developed (0-3). Twelve operators assessed 18 images of esophagus, stomach, and duodenum twice (in 2 weeks interval). In validation round, the images and endoscopy reports of 443 EGDs performed in six centers were assessed.

RESULTS

The inter-observer accordance of POLPREP was 0.8 (intra-class correlation coefficient; 0.79 consultants, 0.85 trainees). The intra-observer repeatability was 0.64 (Fleiss kappa value; 0.64 consultants, 0.64 trainees). The lesions detection rate was significantly higher in clean (scores 2 and 3; 19.7%) than in "unclean" segments (score 1; 7.7%, P = 0.049). Score 3 was associated with over three-fold higher lesion detection than score 1 (odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval 1.1-9; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed POLPREP scale allows for unified assessment of upper gastrointestinal tract mucosal cleanliness. The higher cleanliness scores are related with greater upper gastrointestinal pathologies detection.

Two novel protocols for cleaning residual simethicone and fluid in patient-ready duodenoscopes

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Approximately 42-95% of working channels have been reported to show the presence of residual fluid despite endoscope reprocessing. The aim of this study was to design two novel protocols for cleaning residual simethicone and demonstrate its efficiency by evaluating the residual fluid and cleanliness in the working channels of patient-ready duodenoscopes.

METHODS

The designed protocol for cleaning residual simethicone was implemented in manual cleaning and/or high-level disinfection (HLD). The residual fluid inside the working channels was estimated by visual inspection. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) values were evaluated to determine cleanliness after manual cleaning.

RESULTS

Manual cleaning with novel simethicone cleaning protocol demonstrated a significant decrease in fluid droplets (14.6 ± 29.9 vs 0 ± 0, P < 0.001) and ATP values (157 ± 196 relative light units [RLUs] vs 52 ± 41 RLUs, P = 0.031). HLD with simethicone cleaning protocol, using either enzymatic detergent with effective for cleaning simethicone or cleaning time set in the automatic endoscope reprocessor program for 8 min, demonstrated significant decrease in the number of fluid droplets. Follow-up after the implementation of the simethicone cleaning protocol showed a significant decrease in fluid droplets (37.4 ± 41.0 vs 2.1 ± 5.5, P = 0.003) and ATP values (271 ± 268 RLUs vs 82 ± 136 RLUs, P = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Simethicone cleaning protocol is advantageous for significantly decreasing fluid droplets and ATP values within endoscope working channels. After manual cleaning with the simethicone cleaning protocol, in particular, no retained fluid droplet was observed in patient-ready duodenoscopes.

Feasibility of Upper Gastrointestinal Examination in Home Care Setting with a Magnetically Assisted Capsule Endoscopy System: A Retrospective Study

The magnetic assisted capsule endoscope (MACE) with a hand-held magnetic field navigator (MFN) for upper gastrointestinal examination achieved satisfactory results in a healthy volunteer study. We evaluated the feasibility of upper gastrointestinal examination in the home care setting with the MACE system. Home care patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms that received an MACE exam were enrolled in the study. MACE procedure time; completeness of observation of important anatomical landmarks; endoscopic diagnosis; patient tolerance during the procedure; and patient data, including age, sex, comorbidities, symptoms, body weight, and height, were retrieved from hospital information system for data analysis. A total of 16 participants were enrolled with a mean age 74.3 ± 15.4 years (47 to 99 years). One patient failed to swallow the capsule and was excluded. The average procedure time was 23.7 ± 10.0 min (14.1 to 42.5 min) to complete each endoscopic exam for the remaining 15 patients. The overall maneuverability in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum was 93.75%, 87.5%, and 75%, respectively. Overall completeness in the aforementioned regions was 93.75%, 81.25%, and 75%, respectively. No severe adverse events were noted. The results clearly demonstrate the promise of using this MACE system to perform endoscopic examination outside the hospital for patients confined to the community and home.

Pre-Endoscopy Drink of Simethicone and N-Acetylcysteine Significantly Improves Visualization in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Introduction With the advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE), clear mucosal visualization is essential to ensure optimal outcomes. Though routinely followed in Japan and Korea, pre-endoscopic preparation is seldom used in India. We evaluated the efficacy of a pre-endoscopic drink of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and simethicone in improving mucosal visibility during UGIE.

Patients and Methods This study was a retrospective, investigator blind study with a case–control study design. Cases included patients who received a pre-endoscopy drink of NAC and simethicone in 100 mL water administered 10 to 30 minutes prior to UGIE. Controls only had mandatory fasting for 6 to 8 hours prior to UGIE. Propensity score matching was done to ensure comparability between the groups. Digital images were taken at six standard landmarks during UGIE and stored. A blinded investigator subsequently analyzed the images and rated the mucosal visibility on a 3-point scale. The difference in the mean mucosal visibility between the cases and controls was compared.

Results Mean mucosal visibility during UGIE was significantly better using NAC with simethicone as compared with no preparation at esophagus (1.14 [0.37] vs. 1.47 [0.62], p < 0.05), gastric fundus (1.10 [0.30] vs. 1.55 [0.64], p < 0.05), gastric body (1.22 [0.50] vs. 1.62 [0.73], p < 0.05), gastric antrum (1.13 [0.37] vs. 1.47 [0.62], p < 0.05), and duodenal bulb (1.13 [0.34] vs. 1.33 [0.56], p < 0.05). In distal duodenum, though visibility improved with NAC with simethicone, the difference was insignificant. There were no adverse events related to the pre-endoscopy drink.

Conclusion A pre-endoscopy drink of NAC with simethicone can significantly improve mucosal visibility during UGIE. It is safe, cheap, easily available and maybe considered for routine utilization for ensuring optimal endoscopic outcomes.

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.

Premedication with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine for improving mucosal visibility during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a Western population

Background and study aim  Pre-endoscopic use of a preparation with tensioactive and mucolytic agents improved gastric mucosa visualization in Eastern studies. Data on Western population are scanty. Patients and methods  This prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized study enrolled patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy in a single center. Before endoscopy patients, were randomized to receive or not receive an oral preparation with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine in water. A pretested score (Crema Stomach Cleaning Score [CSCS]) for gastric mucosa cleaning evaluation was used. In detail, the stomach was divided into the antrum, body, and fundus and a score of 1 to 3 was assigned to each part (the higher the score, the better the preparation), and a total value ≤ 5 was considered as insufficient. Time between endoscope insertion and clean achievement (mouth to clean time) or the end of examination (mouth to mouth time) was recorded. Results  A total of 197 patients were enrolled. The mean overall CSCS value and mucosal cleaning in all parts was better in treated patients than in controls. Prevalence total score ≤ 5 was significantly lower in patients treated before endoscopy. Need for water flush occurred less frequently in treated patients ( P  < 0.0001). The mouth to clean time was lower in the treated than in the control group (2.3 ± 1.6 vs 3.8 ± 1.6 min; P  < 0.001), whereas no significant difference in mouth to mouth time emerged. Conclusions  Data from this study show that premedication with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine results in significantly better endoscopic visualization of gastric mucosa, and the proposed CSCS could be useful for standardizing this evaluation.

Recent Advances in Endoscope Disinfection: Where Do We Stand in the COVID era?

Over 16 million cases worldwide, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has profoundly affected healthcare as we know it. Given reports of gastrointestinal involvement and viral shedding in the stool, it is unsurprising there are concerns that endoscopic equipment may be a potential vector of viral transmission. Here, we provide an overview of existing practices for endoscope reprocessing, recent developments in the field, and challenges in the COVID-19 environment. Current multi-society guidelines do not advise any change to endoscope disinfection protocols but emphasize strict adherence to recommended practices. However, endoscopy reprocessing staff may benefit from supplemental personal protective equipment measures, especially in high risk situations. Because thorough endoscope reprocessing is highly operator dependent, adequate training of personnel is critical for proper manual cleaning and disinfection of endoscopes that have potential to harbor virus. Bacterial contamination of duodenoscopes has caused outbreaks of infection from multidrug-resistant organisms, highlighting vulnerable areas. The emphasis of current studies is on optimization of disinfection and drying, minimization of simethicone use, and on quality control of endoscope reprocessing with sampling and microbiological culturing. Recent advances include novel approaches to endoscope sterilization, infection barrier methods, and design of partially or fully disposable duodenoscopes. Overall, the available data indicate that, when correctly executed, current reprocessing practices are sufficient in preventing SARS-COV-2 transmission.

Standing-type magnetically guided capsule endoscopy versus gastroscopy for gastric examination: multicenter blinded comparative trial

AIM

To compare feasibility and safety after gastrointestinal checkup by standing-type magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (SMCE) and conventional gastroscopy.

METHODS

This was a prospective multicenter, blinded study that compared SMCE with gastroscopy in patients from April 2018 to July 2018. All patients first underwent SMCE and then subsequently had gastroscopy with i.v. anesthesia. We calculated the compliance rates of gastric lesion detection by SMCE using gastroscopy as the standard. Capsule retention rate, incidence of adverse events, and patient satisfaction were documented throughout the study.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-one patients who completed SMCE and gastroscopy were included in the analysis. Positive compliance rate among SMCE and gastroscopy was 92.0% (95% CI: 80.77%-97.78%). Negative compliance rate was 95.5% (89.80%, 98.52%). Moreover, overall compliance rate was 94.41% (89.65%, 97.41%). Sixty-four pathological outcomes were identified. Of these 64 outcomes, 50 were detected by both procedures. The gastroscopy method neglected seven findings (such as five erosions, one polyp, and one ulcer). Furthermore, SMCE also overlooked seven lesions (i.e. one erosion, two polyps, one atrophy, and three submucosal tumors). Capsule retention or related adverse events were not reported.

CONCLUSION

Standing-type magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy provides equivalent agreement with gastroscopy and may be useful for screening of gastric illnesses without any anesthesia.

Simethicone use during gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position statement of the Gastroenterological Society of Australia

Concern has been raised regarding the use of simethicone, a de-foaming agent, during endoscopic procedures. Following reports of simethicone residue in endoscope channels despite high level disinfection, an endoscope manufacturer recommended that it not be used due to concerns of biofilm formation and a possible increased risk of microorganism transmission. However, a detailed mucosal assessment is essential in performing high-standard endoscopic procedures. This is impaired by bubbles within the gastrointestinal lumen. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia's Infection Control in Endoscopy Guidelines (ICEG) Committee conducted a literature search utilizing the MEDLINE database. Further references were sourced from published paper bibliographies. Following a review of the available evidence, and drawing on extensive clinical experience, the multidisciplinary ICEG committee considered the risks and benefits of simethicone use in formulating four recommendations. Published reports have documented residual liquid or crystalline simethicone in endoscope channels after high level disinfection. There are no data confirming that simethicone can be cleared from channels by brushing. Multiple series report benefits of simethicone use during gastroscopy and colonoscopy in improving mucosal assessment, adenoma detection rate, and reducing procedure time. There are no published reports of adverse events related specifically to the use of simethicone, delivered either orally or via any endoscope channel. An assessment of the risks and benefits supports the continued use of simethicone during endoscopic procedures. Strict adherence to instrument reprocessing protocols is essential.

An in vitro and clinical dose-finding study of antifoaming effects of simethicone during colonoscopy

Simethicone is an antifoaming agent frequently added to endoscopic rinse solutions but has recently been implicated as a risk factor for transmission of infections due to the formation of simethicone deposits within scope channels. Since the build-up of residue is likely dose-related, the smallest effective dose of simethicone should be used but there are no data available on the effective dose. Thus, we conducted a dose-finding study in an "in vitro bubble model" to determine the appropriate simethicone dose. Six 100-mL test tubes were filled with a 1% (v/v) solution of kitchen detergent (Fairy®, Procter & Gamble, London, England) in water for irrigation (Baxter®, Sydney, Australia). One test tube served as the control, while different doses of simethicone (Infacol®, Nice Pak, Melbourne, Australia) were added to the other five tubes (0.02, 0.2, 2.0, 20, and 200 mg/100 mL). Oxygen was streamed for 30 s into the test tubes at a rate of 2 L/min. After 10 s, photographs were taken and the visible bubbles were semi-quantitatively rated by independent assessors blinded to the dosing of simethicone. Simethicone at doses of 2 mg/100 mL had no appreciable antifoaming effect, whereas concentrations ≥ 20 mg/100 mL were sufficient to suppress bubble formation. This is substantially lower compared with frequently used doses of up to 200 mg/100 mL. Subsequently, we tested the lower simethicone dose with previously used higher doses, in 1475 and 1340 patients, respectively. We found it to have no impact on polyp detection with a rate of 56.7% (54.2-59.3% [95% CI]) at the lower dose and 56.5% (53.8-59.1% [95% CI]) at the higher dose.

Repetitive Position Change Improves Gastric Cleanliness for Magnetically Controlled Capsule Gastroscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Good gastric preparation is essential for magnetically controlled capsule gastroscopy (MCCG) examination. This study aims to determine if repetitive position change after dimethicone premedication could further improve gastric cleanliness for MCCG.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for MCCG in our center from May 7 to May 31, 2018 were prospectively enrolled and randomized to undergo repetitive position change for 15 min (position change group) or not (conventional group) after ingesting dimethicone. Primary outcome was gastric cleanliness score and secondary outcomes were detection rate of positive findings, number of lesions per patient, gastric examination time, and safety of MCCG.

RESULTS

Totals of 43 and 40 were included in the position change and conventional groups, respectively. Gastric cleanliness score in the position change group was significantly higher than in the conventional group (21.2 ± 1.0 vs. 18.6 ± 2.0, P  < 0.001), as was the proportion of acceptable gastric cleanliness (gastric cleanliness score ≥ 18) (100% vs. 72.5%, P  < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in detection rate of positive findings between the two groups (27.9% vs. 27.5%, P  = 0.97). In the position change group, the gastric examination time was significantly reduced (13.2 ± 4.0 vs. 15.3 ± 5.1, P = 0.043). No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive position change after dimethicone premedication significantly improves gastric cleanliness for MCCG examination. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03514966.

An Asian consensus on standards of diagnostic upper endoscopy for neoplasia

BACKGROUND

This is a consensus developed by a group of expert endoscopists aiming to standardise the preparation, process and endoscopic procedural steps for diagnosis of early upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.

METHOD

The Delphi method was used to develop consensus statements through identification of clinical questions on diagnostic endoscopy. Three consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and voting. We conducted a systematic literature search on evidence for each statement. The statements were presented in the second consensus meeting and revised according to comments. The final voting was conducted at the third consensus meeting on the level of evidence and agreement.

RESULTS

Risk stratification should be conducted before endoscopy and high risk endoscopic findings should raise an index of suspicion. The presence of premalignant mucosal changes should be documented and use of sedation is recommended to enhance detection of superficial upper GI neoplasms. The use of antispasmodics and mucolytics enhanced visualisation of the upper GI tract, and systematic endoscopic mapping should be conducted to improve detection. Sufficient examination time and structured training on diagnosis improves detection. Image enhanced endoscopy in addition to white light imaging improves detection of superficial upper GI cancer. Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging is recommended for characterisation of upper GI superficial neoplasms. Endoscopic characterisation can avoid unnecessary biopsy.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides guidance for the performance of endoscopic diagnosis and characterisation for early gastric and oesophageal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early upper GI cancers.

Simethicone is retained in endoscopes despite reprocessing: impact of its use on working channel fluid retention and adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence values (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies from our group and others demonstrate residual fluid in 42% to 95% of endoscope working channels despite high-level disinfection and drying. Additionally, persistent simethicone has been reported in endoscope channels despite reprocessing.

METHODS

Endoscopy was performed by using water or varied simethicone concentrations (0.5%, 1%, 3%) for flushing. After high-level disinfection/drying, we inspected endoscope working channels for retained fluid by using the SteriCam borescope. Working channel rinsates were evaluated for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was performed on fluid droplets gathered from a colonoscope in which low-concentration simethicone was used.

RESULTS

Use of medium/high concentrations of simethicone resulted in a higher mean number of fluid droplets (13.5/17.3 droplets, respectively) and ATP bioluminescence values (20.6/23 relative light units [RLUs], respectively) compared with that of procedures using only water (6.3 droplets/10.9 RLUs; P < .001). Two automated endoscope reprocessing cycles resulted in return of a fluid droplet and ATP bioluminescence values to ranges similar to that of procedures that used only water (P = .56). Low-concentration simethicone did not increase the mean residual fluid or ATP bioluminescence values compared with procedures that used only water (5.8 droplets/15.6 RLUs). Fourier transform infrared analysis revealed simethicone in the endoscope working channel after use of low-concentration simethicone.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of medium/high concentrations of simethicone is associated with retention of increased fluid droplets and higher ATP bioluminescence values in endoscope working channels, compared with endoscopes in which water or low concentration simethicone was used. However, simethicone is detectable in endoscopes despite reprocessing, even when it is utilized in low concentrations. Our data suggest that when simethicone is used, it should be used in the lowest concentration possible. Facilities may consider 2 automated endoscope reprocessor cycles for reprocessing of endoscopes when simethicone has been used.

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.

Use of N-acetylcysteine plus simethicone to improve mucosal visibility during upper GI endoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Upper GI endoscopy (UGE) is essential for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases. Mucus and bubbles may decrease mucosal visibility. The use of mucolytics could improve visualization. Our aim was to determine whether premedication with simethicone or simethicone plus N-acetylcysteine is effective in improving visibility during UGE.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with 2 control groups: no intervention and water 100 mL (W); and 3 intervention groups: simethicone 200 mg (S); S + N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 500 mg (S+NAC500); and S + NAC 1000 mg (S+NAC1000). The solution was ingested 20 minutes before UGE. Gastric visibility was evaluated in 4 segments with a previously described scale. A score of less than 7 points was defined as adequate visibility (AV). Water volume was used to improve visibility, and adverse reactions were evaluated as a secondary outcome. Multiple group comparison was performed using non-parametric one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty patients were included in the study, 68% female, mean age 49 years. The most common indication for UGE was epigastric pain/dyspepsia (33%). AV was more frequent in the S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 groups (65% and 67%) compared with no intervention (44%, P = .044) and water (41%, P = .022). The gastric total visibility scale (TVS) was significantly better in the S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 groups compared with water (P = .03 and P = .008). Simethicone was not different from no intervention and water. S+NAC1000 required less water volume to improve visibility. No adverse reactions from the study drugs were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 improves visibility during UGE. The use of simethicone did not show improvements in gastric visibility. TVS was worse in patients using water alone. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT 01653171.).

Gastric preparation for magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy: A prospective, randomized single-blinded controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE) is a novel technique for which there is no agreed gastric preparation. We aimed to determine an optimal standardized gastric preparation regimen.

METHODS

120 patients referred for MCE were randomly assigned to gastric preparation with either water alone (A), water with simethicone (B) or water, simethicone and pronase (C). Image quality was assessed using cleanliness and visualization scores, higher scores equating to better image quality.

RESULTS

The total cleanliness scores were (mean±SD) 15.83±2.41 (A), 21.35±1.23 (B), and 20.82±1.90 (C). The total visualization scores (mean±SD) were 10.75±2.02 (A), 15.20±1.32 (B), and 15.08±1.86 (C). While the image quality of the whole stomach in groups B and C were significantly better than group A (P<0.0001), there was no statistical difference between group B and C (P>0.05). MCE detected positive findings in 21 (52.5%), 27 (67.5%) and 21 (53.8%) patients in group A, B and C respectively, with no significant difference between groups (P>0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Simethicone swallowed with water prior to MCE produced the optimal gastric mucosal image quality. The addition of pronase had no demonstrable additional benefit.

Efficacy of small-volume simethicone given at least 30 min before gastroscopy

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of 5 mL simethicone solution in decreasing gastric foam if given at least 30 min before gastroscopy.

METHODS

This was a randomized, placebo controlled, endoscopist blinded study performed at Changi General Hospital. Patients were at least 21 years old, had no prior surgical resection of the upper gastrointestinal tract, and scheduled for elective diagnostic gastroscopies. The primary outcome was the total mucosal visibility score (TMVS) which was evaluated using McNally score. The sample size was calculated to be 24 per group (SD 2.4, 80% power, P < 0.05, 2-sample t test).

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were randomised to receive either simethicone [1 mL liquid simethicone (100 mg) in 5 mL of water] or placebo (5 mL of water) at least 30 min before their gastroscopy. Six accredited consultants conducted the gastroscopy, and the interobserver agreement of scoring TMVS was good with a Kappa statistic of 0.73. The simethicone group had significantly better mean TMVS compared to placebo (5.78 ± SD 1.65 vs 8.89 ± SD 1.97, P < 0.001). The improvement was statistically significant for the duodenum and the gastric antrum, angularis, body, and fundus. Percent 51.9 of patients in the simethicone group had a TMVS of 4 (no bubbles at all) to 5 (only 1 area with minimal bubbles), while in the placebo group 3.7% of patients had TMVS of 4 or 5. The number needed to treat was 2.1 to avoid a TMVS of 6 and more. The simethicone group also had a significantly shorter procedure time with less volume of additional flushes required during gastroscopy to clear away obscuring gastric foam.

CONCLUSION

With a premedication time of at least 30 min, 5 mL simethicone can significantly decrease gastric foam, decrease the volume of additional flushes, and shorten gastroscopy time.

A randomized controlled trial of pre-procedure simethicone and N-acetylcysteine to improve mucosal visibility during gastroscopy - NICEVIS

Background and study aims: Mucosal views can be impaired by residual bubbles and mucus during gastroscopy. This study aimed to determine whether a pre-gastroscopy drink containing simethicone and N-acetylcysteine improves mucosal visualisation. Patients and methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial recruiting 126 subjects undergoing routine gastroscopy. Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive: A-pre-procedure drink of water, simethicone and N-acetylcysteine (NAC); B-water alone; or C-no preparation. Study endoscopists were blinded to group allocation. Digital images were taken at 4 locations (lower esophagus/upper gastric body/antrum/fundus), and rated for mucosal visibility (MV) using a 4-point scale (1 = best, 4 = worst) by 4 separate experienced endoscopists. The primary outcome measure was mean mucosal visibility score (MVS). Secondary outcome measures were procedure duration and volume of fluid flush required to achieve adequate mucosal views. Results: Mean MVS for Group A was significantly better than for Group B (1.35 vs 2.11, P < 0.001) and Group C (1.35 vs 2.21, P < 0.001). Mean flush volume required to achieve adequate mucosal views was significantly lower in Group A than Group B (2.0 mL vs 31.5 mL, P = 0.001) and Group C (2.0 mL vs 39.2 mL P < 0.001). Procedure duration did not differ significantly between any of the 3 groups. MV scores at each of the 4 locations demonstrated significantly better mucosal visibility in Group A compared to Group B and Group C (P < 0.0025 for all comparisons). Conclusions: A pre-procedure drink containing simethicone and NAC significantly improves mucosal visibility during gastroscopy and reduces the need for flushes during the procedure. Effectiveness in the lower esophagus demonstrates potential benefit in Barrett's oesophagus surveillance gastroscopy.

Simethicone residue remains inside gastrointestinal endoscopes despite reprocessing

BACKGROUND

During a study designed to assess endoscope reprocessing effectiveness, a borescope was used to examine lumens and ports. Cloudy, white, viscous fluid was observed inside fully reprocessed gastroscopes and colonoscopes. This fluid resembled simethicone, which is commonly administered to reduce foam and bubbles that impede visualization during gastrointestinal endoscopy. This article describes methods used to determine whether the observed fluid contained simethicone.

METHODS

Photographs of residual fluid were taken using a borescope. Sterile cotton-tipped swabs were used to collect samples of fluid observed in 3 endoscope ports. Samples were evaluated using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)-attenuated total reflection analysis.

RESULTS

Residual fluid was observed inside 19 of 20 endoscopes. Fluid photographed in 8 endoscopes resembled simethicone solutions. FTIR analysis confirmed the presence of simethicone in 2 endoscopes.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluid containing simethicone remained inside endoscopes despite reprocessing. Simethicone is an inert, hydrophobic substance that may reduce reprocessing effectiveness. Simethicone solutions commonly contain sugars and thickeners, which may contribute to microbial growth and biofilm development. Studies are needed to assess the prevalence of residual moisture and simethicone in endoscopes and determine the impact on reprocessing effectiveness. We recommend minimizing the use of simethicone pending further research into its safety.

Effectiveness of systematic alphanumeric coded endoscopy for diagnosis of gastric intraepithelial neoplasia in a low socioeconomic population

Background and study aims: In the Western world, gastric cancer (GC) usually presents at an advanced stage, carrying a high mortality rate. Studies have reported that 14 % to 26 % of GCs are missed at endoscopy up to 3 years before diagnosis. Systematic Alphanumeric Coded Endoscopy (SACE) has been proposed to improve quality of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) by facilitating a complete examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract. This prospective cross-sectional study was designed to determine the frequency of gastric intraepithelial neoplasia (GIN) by using the SACE approach in cohort of patients from low socioeconomic level. It also used non-targeted biopsies to evaluate the frequency of premalignant conditions. Patients and methods: A total of 601 consecutive asymptomatic or dyspeptic patients were enrolled between January 2013 and November 2014 at the Huacho regional hospital in Peru. The SACE method proposed by Emura et al, which divides the stomach into 5 regions and 21 areas, was routinely used for diagnosis. Biopsy samples were obtained from any endoscopically detected focal lesion. To evaluate gastric premalignant conditions, 4 non-targeted biopsies were taken. Results: A total of 573 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 57 years, and the female:male ratio was 1.9 : 1. In all cases, complete photo-documentation of the 21 gastric areas was achieved. The overall rate of detection of GIN was 2.8 %. Low-grade displasia, high-grade dysplasia, and adenocarcinoma were found in 13 (2.3 %), 2 (0.3 %), and 1 (0.2 %) of the patients, respectively. The prevalence of at least 1 premalignant condition was 31 %, and helicobacter pylori infection was found in 57 % of patients. Conclusions: Using the SACE approach and with proper training, we have reported herein a high frequency of GIN in patients from a low socioeconomic status. Gastric cancer detection can be improved in a Western endoscopy setting when SACE, as a screening method, is performed by a trained endoscopist.

Accuracy of Magnetically Controlled Capsule Endoscopy, Compared With Conventional Gastroscopy, in Detection of Gastric Diseases

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Diseases of the stomach, including gastric cancer and peptic ulcer, are the most common digestive diseases. It is impossible to visualize the entire stomach with the passive capsule currently used in practice because of the large size of the gastric cavity. A magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE) system has been designed to explore the stomach. We performed a prospective study to compare the accuracy of detection of gastric focal lesions by MCE vs conventional gastroscopy (the standard method).

METHODS

We performed a multicenter blinded study comparing MCE with conventional gastroscopy in 350 patients (mean age, 46.6 y), with upper abdominal complaints scheduled to undergo gastroscopy at a tertiary center in China from August 2014 through December 2014. All patients underwent MCE, followed by conventional gastroscopy 2 hours later, without sedation. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of detection of gastric focal lesions by MCE, using gastroscopy as the standard.

RESULTS

MCE detected gastric focal lesions in the whole stomach with 90.4% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.7%-96.1%), 94.7% specificity (95% CI, 91.9%-97.5%), a positive predictive value of 87.9% (95% CI, 81.7%-94.0%), a negative predictive value of 95.9% (95% CI, 93.4%-98.4%), and 93.4% accuracy (95% CI, 90.83%-96.02%). MCE detected focal lesions in the upper stomach (cardia, fundus, and body) with 90.2% sensitivity (95% CI, 82.0%-98.4%) and 96.7% specificity (95% CI, 94.4%-98.9%). MCE detected focal lesions in the lower stomach (angulus, antrum, and pylorus) with 90.6% sensitivity (95% CI, 82.7%-98.4%) and 97.9% specificity (95% CI, 96.1%-99.7%). MCE detected 1 advanced gastric carcinoma, 2 malignant lymphomas, and 1 early stage gastric tumor. MCE did not miss any lesions of significance (including tumors or large ulcers). Among the 350 patients, 5 reported 9 adverse events (1.4%) and 335 preferred MCE over gastroscopy (95.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

MCE detects focal lesions in the upper and lower stomach with comparable accuracy with conventional gastroscopy. MCE is preferred by almost all patients, compared with gastroscopy, and can be used to screen gastric diseases without sedation. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT02219529.

Therapeutic outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection of differentiated early gastric cancer in a Western endoscopy setting (with video)

BACKGROUND

Large multicenter gastric cancer endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) studies conducted at major Japanese institutions have reported en bloc resection, en bloc tumor-free margin resection, and curative resection rates of 92.7% to 96.1%, 82.6% to 94.5%, and 73.6% to 85.4%, respectively, with delayed bleeding and perforation rates of 0.6% to 6.0% and 3.6% to 4.7%, respectively. Although ESD is currently an alternative treatment in some countries, particularly in Asia, it remains uncertain whether ESD therapeutic outcomes in Western endoscopy settings can be comparable to those achieved in Japan.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the ESD therapeutic outcomes for differentiated early gastric cancer (EGC) in a Western endoscopy setting.

DESIGN/SETTING

Consecutive case series performed by an expertly trained Western endoscopist.

PATIENTS

Fifty-three patients with 54 lesions.

INTERVENTIONS

ESD for early gastric cancers (T1) satisfying expanded inclusion criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

En bloc resection, en bloc tumor-free margin resection, and curative resection rates were 98%, 93%, and 83%, respectively. The delayed bleeding rate was 7%, and the perforation rate was 4%.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 67 years, and the mean tumor size was 19.8 mm, with 54% of the lesions located in the lesser curvature. The median procedure time was 61 minutes, with ESD procedures 60 minutes or longer associated with submucosal fibrosis (P < .001) and tumor size 25 mm or larger (P = .03). In every ESD procedure, both circumferential incision and submucosal dissection were performed by using a single knife. Two of the 4 delayed bleeding cases required surgery, and all perforations were successfully managed by using endoscopic clips.

LIMITATION

Long-term outcome data are currently unavailable.

CONCLUSION

ESD for differentiated EGC resulted in favorable therapeutic outcomes in a Western endoscopy setting comparable to those achieved at major Japanese institutions.

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.