Wang GX, Liu X, Wang S, Ge N, Guo JT, Sun SY. Effects of premedication with Pronase for endoscopic ultrasound of the stomach: A randomized controlled trial. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(48): 10673-10679 [PMID: 28082820 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i48.10673]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Si-Yu Sun, MD, PhD, Professor, Endoscopy Center, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 36 Sanhao Street, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning Province, China. sun-siyu@163.com
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 28, 2016; 22(48): 10673-10679 Published online Dec 28, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i48.10673
Table 1 Eligibility and exclusion criteria for this study
Eligibility criteria
1
Patients who required an EUS examination because of gastric diseases
2
Patients aged 18-70 yr
Exclusion criteria
1
Patients with contraindications to endoscopy
2
Patients allergic to the pharmaceutical ingredients
3
Patients with gastric bleeding or suspected gastric bleeding
4
Patients with blood coagulation dysfunction
5
Patients with severe psychological diseases such as depression, anxiety, hypochondria and hysteria
6
Patients with severe cardiac dysfunction (NYHA cardiac function classification ≥ class III)
7
Patients with abnormal hepatic function (serum ALT and AST levels of ≥ 4 times the upper normal limit)
8
Patients with renal dysfunction (serum Cr level of ≥ 2 times the upper normal limit)
9
Patients with moderate to severe ventilatory dysfunction
10
Diabetic patients with unsatisfactory glycemic control
11
Hypertensive patients with unsatisfactory blood pressure control
12
Pregnant women or women who are breastfeeding
Table 2 Scoring of the gastric cavity obscurity grade
Score
Number of high-echo spots
0
No or few
1
Low
2
Moderate
3
High
Table 3 Scoring of the gastric wall surface in endoscopic ultrasonography imaging
Score
Artifacts
0
Notable, affecting the diagnosis
1
Moderate
2
Negligible
3
None, clear wall interface
Table 4 Demographic characteristics of enrolled patients
Pronase group
Placebo group
Value
P value
Number of patients
63
62
Age, mean ± SD
55.78 ± 12.37
53.47 ± 13.41
t = 1.001
0.319
Sex
Male
22
19
χ2 = 0.259
0.611
Female
41
43
Location
Fundus
14
9
χ2 = 1.264
0.532
Corpus
26
29
Antrum
23
24
Methods
Radial EUS
48
43
χ2 = 0.737
0.391
Linear-array EUS
15
19
Table 5 Endoscopic ultrasonography obscurity scores for the gastric cavity and mucosal surface
Pronase group
Placebo group
Value
P value
Gastric cavity obscurity scores during EUS
3
14
8
Z = -3.428
0.001
2
35
21
1
11
20
0
3
13
Gastric mucosal surface obscurity scores during EUS
3
11
7
Z = -3.861
0.000
2
37
10
1
6
36
0
9
9
Table 6 Mean endoscopic ultrasonography obscurity scores for the gastric cavity and mucosal surface
Pronase group
Placebo group
Value
P value
Mean gastric cavity obscurity scores
1.0476 ± 0.77
1.6129 ± 0.96
t = -3.617
0.000
Mean gastric mucosal surface obscurity scores
1.2063 ± 0.90
1.7581 ± 0.84
t = -3.534
0.001
Duration of EUS, mean ± SD
11.60 ± 3.32
13.13 ± 3.81
t = -2.387
0.018
Volume of saline, mean ± SD
417.94 ± 121.38
467.42 ± 104.52
t = -2.441
0.016
Citation: Wang GX, Liu X, Wang S, Ge N, Guo JT, Sun SY. Effects of premedication with Pronase for endoscopic ultrasound of the stomach: A randomized controlled trial. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(48): 10673-10679