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

Table 1 Patients’ characteristics

Characteristics	Group A	Group B
n	71	72
Age (yr)	57.5	60.2
Gender (M:F)	44:27	46:26
Indication
Early esophageal cancer	3	1
Early gastric cancer.	39	36
Gastric adenoma	10	15
Gastric maltoma	3	1
Gastric/duodenal subepithelial lesion	14	14
Gastric polyp or erosion	3	4
Location of lesion
Esophagus	3	1
Gastric cardia	0	1
Stomach upper body	13	8
Stomach midbody	0	1
Stomach lower body	17	19
Gastric angle	7	14
Gastric antrum	32	27

Table 2 Mucosal visibility grade by magnifying endoscopy and number of flushes needed to obtain good visibility of magnifying endoscopy in stomach n (%)

	Group A	Group B	P value
Stomach
G1	52 (73)	35 (48.6)	< 0.01
G2	16 (23)	27 (37.5)
G3	3 (4)	10 (14)
Esophagus
G1	48 (67.6)	42 (58.3)	< 0.01
G2	17 (23.9)	18 (25)
G3	6 (8.4)	12 (16.7)
Number of water flush
Mean (median, range)	0.7 ± 0.9 (0, 0-3)	1.9 ± 1.5 (1, 0-6)	< 0.01
0-1	57 (80)	38 (53)
2-3	14 (20)	28 (39)
4-6	0	6 (8)
Time taken to be completed examination (s), median (25%-75%)	766 (647-866)	760 (678-854)	0.87

Group A: Premedication with pronase + simethicone; Group B: Premedication with simethicone.

Table 3 The gastric mucosal surface obscurity grade during conventional endoscopy

	Group A	Group B	P value
Fundus	1.4 ± 0.7	2.6 ± 1.2	< 0.01
Upper body	1.4 ± 0.7	2.6 ± 1.2	< 0.01
Lower body	1.1 ± 0.4	1.7 ± 0.9	< 0.01
Antrum	1.0 ± 0.1	1.4 ± 0.7	< 0.01
Total	4.9 ± 1.5	8.3 ± 1.8	< 0.01

Group A: Premedication with pronase + simethicone; Group B: Premedication with simethicone.