Literature DB >> 25019968

Endoscopic flushing with pronase improves the quantity and quality of gastric biopsy: a prospective study.

Sun-Young Lee1, Hye S Han2, Jae M Cha3, Yu K Cho4, Gwang H Kim5, Il-Kwun Chung6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Pronase, a proteolytic enzyme, is known to improve mucosal visibility during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), but little is known about its effects on gastric biopsy. This study assessed whether endoscopic flushing with pronase improves the quality of gastric biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent EGD were randomly assigned to either the control group or the pronase group in a prospective setting. The first biopsy of the identified lesion was performed during endoscopy. Endoscopic flushing with either 50 mL of water and dimethylpolysiloxane (DMPS; control group) or 50 mL of water, pronase, sodium bicarbonate, and DMPS (pronase group) was then applied to the lesion. After 5 minutes, the second biopsy was performed 2 - 3 mm away from the first biopsy site. The thickness of mucus, depth of the specimen, overall diagnostic adequacy, anatomical orientation, and crush artifact were measured to assess the quality of the biopsy.
RESULTS: Of the 208 patients, 10 were not analyzed due to the absence of an identifiable lesion. Compared with the control group, the pronase group showed significantly decreased thickness of mucus (P < 0.001), increased depth of biopsy (P < 0.001), improved anatomical orientation (P = 0.010), and improved overall diagnostic assessment (P = 0.011) in the second biopsied specimen following endoscopic flushing. The crush artifact and hemorrhage did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic flushing with pronase not only improved the depth of biopsy but also the anatomical orientation and overall diagnostic adequacy. Pronase can be recommended for flushing during EGD to improve the quantity and quality of biopsy. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25019968     DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1365811

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  4 in total

Review 1.  Efforts to increase image quality during endoscopy: The role of pronase.

Authors:  Gwang Ha Kim; Yu Kyung Cho; Jae Myung Cha; Sun-Young Lee; Il-Kwun Chung
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-03-10

2.  Low Discrepancy Between Tissue Biopsy Plus Magnifying Endoscopy With Narrow-Band Imaging and Endoscopic Resection in the Diagnosis of Gastric Epithelial Neoplasia (STROBE).

Authors:  Qiang Zhang; Zhou Yang Lian; Zhen Yu Chen; Zhen Wang; Chu di Chen; Sheng Li An; Wei Gong; Fa Chao Zhi; Si de Liu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.889

3.  Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS).

Authors:  Sabina Beg; Krish Ragunath; Andrew Wyman; Matthew Banks; Nigel Trudgill; D Mark Pritchard; Stuart Riley; John Anderson; Helen Griffiths; Pradeep Bhandari; Phillip Kaye; Andrew Veitch
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Recent advances in diagnostic upper endoscopy.

Authors:  Jun-Liang Teh; Asim Shabbir; Soon Yuen; Jimmy Bok-Yan So
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.