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

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.

• References

• 1 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
• 2 Chen MJ, Wang HY, Chang CW et al. The add-on N-acetylcysteine is more effective than dimethicone alone to eliminate mucus during narrow-band imaging endoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 241-245
• 3 Han JP, Hong SJ, Moon JH et al. Benefit of pronase in image quality during EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1230-1237
• 4 Sakai N, Tatsuta M, Iishi H et al. Pre-medication with pronase reduces artefacts during endoscopic ultrasonography. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18: 327-332
• 5 Kuo CH, Sheu BS, Kao AW et al. A defoaming agent should be used with pronase premedication to improve visibility in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 531-534
• 6 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
• 7 Lee GJ, Park SJ, Kim SJ et al. Effectiveness of premedication with pronase for visualization of the mucosa during endoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial. Clin Endosc 2012; 45: 161-164
• 8 Woo JG, Kim TO, Kim HJ et al. Determination of the optimal time for premedication with pronase, dimethylpolysiloxane, and sodium bicarbonate for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 47: 389-392
• 9 Bhandari P, Green S, Hamanaka H et al. Use of Gascon and pronase either as a pre-endoscopic drink or as targeted endoscopic flushing to improve visibility during gastroscopy: a prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 357-361
• 10 Rhee KH, Han HS, Lee SY et al. Does a small biopsied gastric specimen limit the usage of two directional transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy?. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 25: 270-276
• 11 Kihira K, Satoh K, Saifuku K et al. Endoscopic topical therapy for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection. J Gastroenterol 1996; 31: 66-68
• 12 Fantin AC, Neuweiler J, Binek JS et al. Diagnostic quality of biopsy specimens: comparison between a conventional biopsy forceps and multibite forceps. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 600-604
• 13 Yang R, Vuitch F, Wright K et al. Adequacy of disposable biopsy forceps for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a direct comparison with reusable forceps. Gastrointest Endosc 1990; 36: 379-381