Effectiveness of Premedication with Pronase for Visualization of the Mucosa during Endoscopy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Gyu Jin Lee; Seun Ja Park; Sun Jung Kim; Hyung Hun Kim; Moo In Park; Won Moon

doi:10.5946/ce.2012.45.2.161

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 45(2); 2012 > Article

Original Article Effectiveness of Premedication with Pronase for Visualization of the Mucosa during Endoscopy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial: Gyu Jin Lee, Seun Ja Park, Sun Jung Kim, Hyung Hun Kim, Moo In Park, Won Moon; Clinical Endoscopy 2012;45(2):161-164.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.2.161
Published online: June 30, 2012

Department of Gastroenteology, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.

Correspondence: Seun Ja Park. Department of Gastroenteology, Kosin University College of Medicine, 262 Gamcheon-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 602-702, Korea. Tel: +82-51-990-5205, Fax: +82-51-990-3005, parksj6406@yahoo.co.kr

• Received: July 26, 2011 • Revised: November 3, 2011 • Accepted: December 29, 2011

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

6,103 Views
99 Download
30 Crossref
39 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
Gastric mucus should be removed before endoscopic examination to increase visibility. In this study, the effectiveness of premedication with pronase for improving visibility during endoscopy was investigated.
Methods
From April 2010 to February 2011, 400 outpatients were randomly assigned to receive endoscopy with one of four premedications as follows: dimethylpolysiloxane (DMPS), pronase and sodium bicarbonate with 10 minutes premedication time (group A, n=100), DMPS and sodium bicarbonate with 10 minutes premedication time (group B, n=100), DMPS, pronase and sodium bicarbonate with 20 minutes premedication time (group C, n=100), and DMPS and sodium bicarbonate with 20 minute premedication time (group D, n=100). One endoscopist, who was unaware of the premedication types, calculated the visibility scores (range, 1 to 3) of the antrum, lower gastric body, upper gastric body and fundus. The sum of the scores from the four locations was defined as the total visibility score.
Results
Group C showed significantly lower scores than other groups (p=0.002). Group C also had the lowest frequency of flushing, which was significantly lower than that of group D. Groups C and D had significantly shorter durations of examination than groups A and B.
Conclusions
Using pronase 20 minutes before endoscopy significantly improved endoscopic visualization and decreased the frequency of water flushing.
Keywords: Pronase; Premedication

INTRODUCTION

Early gastric cancer (EGC) is defined as a neoplasm confined to the mucosa or submucosa regardless of regional lymph node metastasis.1 The rate of EGC, which varies by country, accounts for 40% to 60% of all gastric cancer cases in Japan and 0% to 15% in the UK and other Western countries.2,3 EGC is a curable disease regardless of its location, histologic type, or genetic changes, and has an excellent 5-year survival rate of more than 90% following resection, which is in contrast to the dismal 5-year survival rate of 10% to 20% for advanced gastric cancer.4 Therefore, early detection of EGC is important. Endoscopy is the most commonly used screening test for EGC. However, the endoscopic view is often obscured by the presence of bubbles and mucus on the gastric mucosa.5 To improve visibility during endoscopy, the gastric mucus should be as completely removed as possible.6

Pronase, an enzyme that was first isolated from the culture filtrate of Streptomyces griseus in 1962, can disrupt the gastric mucus by a mucolytic effect.7 In 1964, Koga and Arakawa8 used pronase to remove gastric mucus for roentgenographic examination. And then, Ida et al.9 have applied this enzyme as a premedication for endoscopy.

This study was performed since there have not been many studies reporting the effectiveness of premedication with pronase for improving visibility during endoscopy in this area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients

From April 2010 to February 2011, 400 patients who were referred to our department for upper gastrointestinal screening endoscopy were included in this study. We excluded patients with previous gastric surgery, gastric malignancy, corrosive gastric injury, gastrointestinal bleeding, current pregnancy, other malignancy or stenosis of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at Kosin University Gospel hospital, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Premedication and endoscopic procedure

Endoscopic procedures were performed by a single experienced endoscopist between 9:00 AM and 1:00 PM in the endoscopy room of Kosin University Gospel Hospital. CF-H260AL video endoscope (Olympus Optical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) was used for endoscopy.

After informed consent was obtained, patients were randomized using the sealed envelope technique to assign them into one of the following four premedication strategies: 1) 100 mL of warm water containing 80 mg of dimethylpolysiloxane (DMPS) (Gasocol; Taejoon Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea), 1 g of sodium bicarbonate and 20,000 units of pronase (endonase; Pharmbio Korea, Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea) with 10 minutes premedication duration (group A); 2) 100 mL of warm water containing 80 mg of DMPS and 1 g of sodium bicarbonate with 10 minutes premedication duration (group B); 3) 100 mL of warm water containing 80 mg of DMPS, 1 g of sodium bicarbonate and 20,000 units of pronase with 20 minutes premedication duration (group C); and 4) 100 mL of warm water containing 80 mg of DMPS and 1 g of sodium bicarbonate with 20 minutes premedication duration (group D). The investigator was blinded to the type of premedication assigned to each patients when deciding whe-ther or not to enroll the patients. After removal of excess gastric solution, the endoscopist checked the mucosal visibility of the gastric antrum, the greater curvature of the gastric lower body, the greater curvature of the gastric upper body, and the fundus. The scoring system was as follows: score 1, indicating no adherent mucus and clear view of the mucosa; score 2, a thin coating of mucus but no obscured vision; and score 3, adherent mucus obscuring vision. The sum of the scores from the four locations was defined as the total mucosal visibility score (MVS) (Fig. 1). The duration of endoscopy was defined as the time it took to perform complete stomach examination excluding the time for biopsy and flushing. Fifty milliliter of warm water flushing was counted as one flushing.

Statistical analysis

Demographic characteristics were assessed using a chi-square test. The visibility scores, duration of endoscopy and frequency of water flushing of the four groups were assessed using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's multiple comparisons. The results were shown as mean±standard deviation. Calculated p-values of less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Power calculation

To estimate whether pronase is a significantly effective gastric mucosa cleanser, 280 patients were needed to be recruited (p<0.05, 95% power). Due to follow-up loss and data errors, additional patients were registered.

RESULTS

Of the 400 patients, each 100 patients were randomly enrolled into groups A, B, C, and D. The median ages of groups A, B, C, and D were 52, 52, 55, and 50 years, respectively. The ratios of male to female among groups A, B, C, and D were 1: 1.3, 1:1.2, 1:1.1, and 1:0.8, respectively. Two cases of EGC were noted each from group B and D. There were no significant differences among the four groups with respect to sex, age or detection of EGC (Table 1). There were no serious adverse events in any of the groups during the examinations. One endoscopist individually assessed the visibility scores for each patient. The MVS of the four groups are shown in Table 2. The mean MVS was the lowest in group C (p=0.002) (Table 2). As shown in Table 3, the best visibility score was observed in the antrum of all groups. The greater curvature of upper body had the worst visibility score. Except for the fundus, group C had significantly better MVSs than group D. The mean endoscopy durations of group C (235.19±94.71) and group D (226.47±68.67) were significantly shorter than those of groups A (291.44±168.96) and B (291.48±116.52). The mean frequency of water flushing was decreased the most in group C (0.89±1.22). Group C had a significantly lower frequency of water flushing than group D (1.46±1.52) (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

Proper premedication before endoscopy is important to ensure satisfactory visualization of the gastric wall. In the present study, we found that the administration of pronase 20 minutes before endoscopy significantly improved visibility during endoscopy. Also, pronase premedication decreased the frequency of water flushing, although not the duration of endoscopy.

For complete removal of gastric mucus with pronase, we considered several factors that might affect the activity of pronase. Since the maximal mucolysis by pronase was found to occur at pH 6 to 8, it is necessary to neutralize the acidity of the gastric juice with a neutralizer (e.g., NaHCO₃) or succinate buffer and to prevent subsequent hypersecretion of gastric juice with a parasympathetic blocker such as scopolamine butylbromide.10

In previous studies, patients were asked to rotate for complete clearance of gastric mucus,7,9 which we did not. Given that the premedication fluid flowed into the gastric fundus, then gradually into the gastric antrum, we thought it was not necessary to change position as in the previous studies.

Although the optimal quantity, density and time of premedication with pronase have not yet been established, previous studies recommended them as below. Ida et al.9 obtained good results using 80 mL of warm water containing DMPS, sodium bicarbonate and pronase. Fujii et al.7 used 100 mL of warm water containing the same components as the above and found that premedication with pronase significantly improved the visibility. In our study, we also used 100 mL warm water with DMPS, sodium bicarbonate and pronase to observe significantly better mucosal visibility. Therefore, patients were recommended to receive 80 to 100 mL of oral solution.

In the previous studies, patients who received 20,000 units pronase with sodium bicarbonate and DMPS for premedications resulted in better MVS than those of other groups.7,10 In our study, we also used 20,000 units of pronase and got the same result. However, Kuo et al.11 used premedication with only 2,000 units pronase, 1.2 g of sodium bicarbonate, 100 mg of DMPS and up to 100 mL of warm water, which resulted in the clearest mucosal visibility. It may be concluded that 2,000 units or more of pronase are sufficient to affect mucosal visibility.

Fujii et al.7 gave premedications around 10 minutes before endoscopy, while Chang et al.10 gave premedications around 20 minutes before endoscopy. We compared the effects of these durations of premedication on mucosal visibility. In our study, there was no significant difference in MVS between group A (10-minute premedication) and group C (20-minute premedication). This suggests that the duration of premedication dose not play a significant role in satisfactory mucosa visualization. Our study is the first to statistically evaluate the effect of the duration of premedication with pronase on mucosal visibility

Some studies have shown that premedication with a defoaming agent and acetylcystein, a mucolytic agent, with pronase can significantly improve the visibility.7,9,11

In our study, MVS was the highest in the upper gastric body and the lowest in the antrum across all groups. We speculate that the exposure time to the ingested premedication fluid contributed to such results.

This study demonstrates that the administration of pronase 20 minutes before endoscopy improves the endoscopic visualization and decreases the frequency of water flushing significantly. We found that the greater curvature of the upper gastric body had the poorest mucosal visibility among all locations. Thus, endoscopists are required to observe this area more carefully.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Kosin University Research Fund of 2010.

NOTES

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer 2011;14:101–112. 21573743.Article PubMed PDF
2. Shimizu S, Tada M, Kawai K. Early gastric cancer: its surveillance and natural course. Endoscopy 1995;27:27–31. 7601031.Article PubMed
3. Talley NJ, Silverstein MD, Agréus L, Nyrén O, Sonnenberg A, Holtmann G. AGA technical review: evaluation of dyspepsia. American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology 1998;114:582–595. 9496950.Article PubMed
4. Borie F, Rigau V, Fingerhut A, Millat B. French Association for Surgical Research. Prognostic factors for early gastric cancer in France: Cox regression analysis of 332 cases. World J Surg 2004;28:686–691. 15383869.Article PubMed
5. Banerjee B, Parker J, Waits W, Davis B. Effectiveness of preprocedure simethicone drink in improving visibility during esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a double-blind, randomized study. J Clin Gastroenterol 1992;15:264–265. 1479177.Article
6. McDonald GB, O'Leary R, Stratton C. Pre-endoscopic use of oral simethicone. Gastrointest Endosc 1978;24:283. 365670.Article PubMed
7. Fujii T, Iishi H, Tatsuta M, et al. Effectiveness of premedication with pronase for improving visibility during gastroendoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;47:382–387. 9609431.Article PubMed
8. Koga M, Arakawa K. On the application of enzymatic mucinolysis in X-ray diagnosis of the stomach. Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 1964;24:1011–1031. 14280614.PubMed
9. Ida K, Okuda J, Nakazawa S, et al. Clinical evaluation of premedication with KPD (Pronase) in gastroendoscopy-placebo-controlled double blind study in dye scattering endoscopy. Clin Rep 1991;25:1793–1804.
10. Chang CC, Chen SH, Lin CP, et al. Premedication with pronase or N-acetylcysteine improves visibility during gastroendoscopy: an endoscopist-blinded, prospective, randomized study. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:444–447. 17230616.Article PubMed PMC
11. Kuo CH, Sheu BS, Kao AW, Wu CH, Chuang CH. A defoaming agent should be used with pronase premedication to improve visibility in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2002;34:531–534. 12170403.Article PubMed

Fig. 1

Mucosal visibility score. (A) Score 1, no adherent mucus and clear view of the mucosa. (B) Score 2, a thin coating of mucus without obscured vision. (C) Score 3, adherent mucus obscuring vision.

Table 1

Characteristics of Patients of Each Groups

Group A, dimethylpolysiloxane (DMPS), sodium bicarbonate and pronase with 10 minutes premedication time; Group B, DMPS and sodium bicarbonate with 10 minutes premedication time; Group C, DMPS, sodium bicarbonate and pronase with 20 minutes premedication time; Group D, DMPS and sodium bicarbonate with 20 minutes premedication time. ECG, early gastric cancer.

Table 2

Mucosal Visibility Scores

Values are presented as mean±SD.

Table 3

Mucosal Visibility Scores at Different Locations of the Stomach

Values are presented as mean±SD.

^a)p<0.05 vs. group A; ^b)p<0.05 vs. group B; ^c)p<0.05 vs. group C; ^d)p<0.05 vs. group D.

Table 4

The Mean Duration of Endoscopy and Water Flushing Frequency

Values are presented as mean±SD.

^a)p<0.05 vs. group A; ^b)p<0.05 vs. group B; ^c)p<0.05 vs. group C; ^d)p<0.05 vs. group D.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Effect of Premedication With Pronase Before Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Jun Li, Lan Wang, Weiling Hu, Jiaguo Wu, Hongtan Chen, Liangjing Wang, Bin Lv, Xiaofeng Zhang, Yiyang Dai, Zhiming Huang, Zhenzhai Cai, Xiaoyun Ding, Liping Ye, Jin Ding, Lijuan Xiang, Bin Ye, Shujie Chen, Jianmin Si
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.2024; 58(1): 53. CrossRef
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
Li Cao, Fangqin Zheng, Deqiong Wang, Li Chen, Xinxia Feng, Zhenzhen Zhou, Jingmei Liu, Mi Wang, Qiaozhen Guo, Mei Liu
Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.2024; 15(2): e00625. CrossRef
Cáncer gástrico de intervalo: un llamado a la atención y a la acción
R. Castaño-Llano, A. Piñeres, R. Jaramillo, S. Molina, F. Aristizábal, J.E. Puerta
Revista de Gastroenterología de México.2023; 88(2): 91. CrossRef
Interval gastric cancer: A call to attentiveness and action
R. Castaño-Llano, A. Piñeres, R. Jaramillo, S. Molina, F. Aristizábal, J.E. Puerta
Revista de Gastroenterología de México (English Edition).2023; 88(2): 91. CrossRef
Pre-procedure oral administration of pronase improves efficacy of lugol chromoendoscopy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma screening: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial
Xin Zhao, Meng Guo, Shaohua Zhu, Linhui Zhang, Tao Dong, Hui Luo, Weihua Yu, Jiangyi Zhu, Xiaotong Fan, Ying Han, Zhiguo Liu
Surgical Endoscopy.2023; 37(6): 4421. CrossRef
Translation from manual to automatic endoscopic insufflation enhanced by a pressure limiter
Yuki Ushimaru, Tsuyoshi Takahashi, Kotaro Yamashita, Takuro Saito, Koji Tanaka, Kazuyoshi Yamamoto, Tomoki Makino, Yukinori Kurokawa, Hidetoshi Eguchi, Yuichiro Doki, Kiyokazu Nakajima
Surgical Endoscopy.2022; 36(9): 7038. CrossRef
Quality indicators in esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Sang Yoon Kim, Jae Myung Park
Clinical Endoscopy.2022; 55(3): 319. CrossRef
Chinese integrated guideline on the management of gastric precancerous conditions and lesions
Ping Wang, Peng Li, Yingxuan Chen, Li Li, Yuanyuan Lu, Weixun Zhou, Liqun Bian, Beihua Zhang, Xiaolan Yin, Junxiang Li, Jie Chen, Shutian Zhang, Yongquan Shi, Xudong Tang
Chinese Medicine.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing simethicone, N-acetylcysteine, sodium bicarbonate and peppermint for visualization in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy
Prasit Mahawongkajit, Amonpon Kanlerd
Surgical Endoscopy.2021; 35(1): 303. CrossRef
Cohortes de premedicación en endoscopia alta con Simeticona, N-acetylcisteina, Hedera helix y validación de escala visual
Camilo de Jesús Blanco Avellaneda, María Isabel Barreto-Guevara, Yenny Lucía Walteros-Gordillo, Néstor Armando Pinzón-Segura, María del Carmen Rivera-Velasco, José Bareño-Silva
Revista colombiana de Gastroenterología.2021; 36(1): 39. CrossRef
Premedication with reformulated simethicone and sodium bicarbonate improves mucosal visibility during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial
Xueqin Chen, Ning Dai, Yanyong Deng, Xin Sun, Mingqing Zhang, Jie Pan, Zhiming Huang, Guoliang Ye, Jianmin Si, Lan Wang, Shujie Chen
BMC Gastroenterology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Documento de posicionamiento de la AEG, la SEED y la SEAP sobre calidad de la endoscopia digestiva alta para la detección y vigilancia de las lesiones precursoras de cáncer gástrico
Glòria Fernández-Esparrach, José Carlos Marín-Gabriel, Pilar Díez Redondo, Henar Núñez, Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago, Pedro Rosón, Xavier Calvet, Miriam Cuatrecasas, Joaquín Cubiella, Leticia Moreira, M. Luisa Pardo López, Ángeles Pérez Aisa, José Miguel
Gastroenterología y Hepatología.2021; 44(6): 448. CrossRef
Quality in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the detection and surveillance of gastric cancer precursor lesions: Position paper of AEG, SEED and SEAP
Glòria Fernández-Esparrach, José Carlos Marín-Gabriel, Pilar Díez Redondo, Henar Núñez, Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago, Pedro Rosón, Xavier Calvet, Miriam Cuatrecasas, Joaquín Cubiella, Leticia Moreira, M. Luisa Pardo López, Ángeles Pérez Aisa, José Miguel
Gastroenterología y Hepatología (English Edition).2021; 44(6): 448. CrossRef
Pre-Endoscopy Drink of Simethicone and N-Acetylcysteine Significantly Improves Visualization in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Shrihari Anil Anikhindi, Ashish Kumar, Noriya Uedo, Vikas Singla, Akshay Anikhindi, Praveen Sharma, Naresh Bansal, Piyush Ranjan, Mandhir Kumar, Munish Sachdeva, Shivam Khare, Anil Arora
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy.2021; 12(01): 011. CrossRef
Guidelines for endoscopic diagnosis of early gastric cancer
Kenshi Yao, Noriya Uedo, Tomoari Kamada, Toshiaki Hirasawa, Takashi Nagahama, Shigetaka Yoshinaga, Masashi Oka, Kazuhiko Inoue, Katsuhiro Mabe, Takashi Yao, Masahiro Yoshida, Isao Miyashiro, Kazuma Fujimoto, Hisao Tajiri
Digestive Endoscopy.2020; 32(5): 663. CrossRef
Repetitive Position Change Improves Gastric Cleanliness for Magnetically Controlled Capsule Gastroscopy
Yuan-Chen Wang, Jun Pan, Xi Jiang, Xiao-Ju Su, Wei Zhou, Wen-Bin Zou, Yang-Yang Qian, Yi-Zhi Chen, Xiao Liu, Jin Yu, Xiao-Nan Yan, An-Jing Zhao, Zhao-Shen Li, Zhuan Liao
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2019; 64(5): 1297. CrossRef
An Asian consensus on standards of diagnostic upper endoscopy for neoplasia
Philip Wai Yan Chiu, Noriya Uedo, Rajvinder Singh, Takuji Gotoda, Enders Kwok Wai Ng, Kenshi Yao, Tiing Leong Ang, Shiaw Hooi Ho, Daisuke Kikuchi, Fang Yao, Rapat Pittayanon, Kenichi Goda, James Y W Lau, Hisao Tajiri, Haruhiro Inoue
Gut.2019; 68(2): 186. CrossRef
Gastric preparation for magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy: A prospective, randomized single-blinded controlled trial
Shu-Guang Zhu, Yang-Yang Qian, Xin-Ying Tang, Qian-Qian Zhu, Wei Zhou, Han Du, Wei An, Xiao-Ju Su, An-Jing Zhao, Hey-Long Ching, Mark Edward McAlindon, Zhao-Shen Li, Zhuan Liao
Digestive and Liver Disease.2018; 50(1): 42. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of using premedication with simethicone/Pronase during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy examination with sedation: A single center, prospective, single blinded, randomized controlled trial
Ling‐Ye Zhang, Wen‐Yan Li, Ming Ji, Fu‐Kun Liu, Guang‐Yong Chen, Shan‐Shan Wu, Qian Hao, Hui‐Hong Zhai, Shu‐Tian Zhang
Digestive Endoscopy.2018; 30(1): 57. CrossRef
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
X. Liu, C. T. Guan, L. Y. Xue, S. He, Y. M. Zhang, D. L. Zhao, Y. Li, F. G. Liu, J. Li, Y. F. Liu, A. S. Ling, W. Q. Wei, G. Q. Wang
Surgical Endoscopy.2018; 32(8): 3548. CrossRef
Upper gastrointestinal tract capsule endoscopy using a nurse-led protocol: First reported experience
Hey-Long Ching, Ailish Healy, Victoria Thurston, Melissa F Hale, Reena Sidhu, Mark E McAlindon
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2018; 24(26): 2893. CrossRef
Differences in routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy between Japanese and international facilities: A questionnaire survey
Noriya Uedo, Takuji Gotoda, Shigetaka Yoshinaga, Tokuma Tanuma, Yoshinori Morita, Hisashi Doyama, Akira Aso, Toshiaki Hirasawa, Tomonori Yano, Norihisa Uchita, Shiaw‐Hooi Ho, Ping‐Hsin Hsieh
Digestive Endoscopy.2016; 28(S1): 16. CrossRef
Variation in preparation for gastroscopy: lessons towards safer and better outcomes
J L Callaghan, J R Neale, P C Boger, A P Sampson, P Patel
Frontline Gastroenterology.2016; 7(3): 187. CrossRef
Current and future role of magnetically assisted gastric capsule endoscopy in the upper gastrointestinal tract
Hey-Long Ching, Melissa Fay Hale, Mark Edward McAlindon
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.2016; 9(3): 313. CrossRef
Efficacy of small-volume simethicone given at least 30 min before gastroscopy
Mingjun Song, Andrew Boon Eu Kwek, Ngai Moh Law, Jeannie Peng Lan Ong, Jessica Yi-Lyn Tan, Prem Harichander Thurairajah, Daphne Shih Wen Ang, Tiing Leong Ang
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology and Therapeutics.2016; 7(4): 572. CrossRef
Additive Effect of Pronase on the Eradication Rate of First-Line Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Infection
Chang Seok Bang, Yeon Soo Kim, Sang Hyun Park, Jin Bong Kim, Gwang Ho Baik, Ki Tae Suk, Jai Hoon Yoon, Dong Joon Kim
Gut and Liver.2015;[Epub] CrossRef
Effect of pronase as mucolytic agent on imaging quality of magnifying endoscopy
Gwang Ha Kim
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2015; 21(8): 2483. CrossRef
Effect of Pronase Premedication on Narrow-Band Imaging Endoscopy in Patients with Precancerous Conditions of Stomach
Jae Myung Cha, Kyu Yeoun Won, Il-Kwun Chung, Gwang Ha Kim, Sun-Young Lee, Yoo Kyung Cho
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2014; 59(11): 2735. CrossRef
Efficacy of simethicone and N‐acetylcysteine as premedication in improving visibility during upper endoscopy
Wei‐Kuo Chang, Ming‐Kung Yeh, Hsuang‐Chun Hsu, Hsuan‐Wei Chen, Ming‐Kuan Hu
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2014; 29(4): 769. CrossRef
Gastric Preparation for Upper Endoscopy
Il Ju Choi
Clinical Endoscopy.2012; 45(2): 113. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Effectiveness of Premedication with Pronase for Visualization of the Mucosa during Endoscopy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Clin Endosc. 2012;45(2):161-164. Published online June 30, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.2.161

XML Download

Figure

We recommend