simethicone has been researched along with Stomach-Neoplasms* in 2 studies
2 trial(s) available for simethicone and Stomach-Neoplasms
Article | Year |
---|---|
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.
To investigate the efficacy and safety of premedication with simethicone/Pronase during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with sedation.. Six hundred and ten patients were randomly allocated to two groups based on type of premedication given. Premedication used in the control group was 10 mL lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage (LHM, N = 314) and premedication used in the intervention group was 80 mL simethicone/Pronase solution plus 10 mL lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage (SP/LHM, N = 296). EGD was done under sedation. Visibility scores, number of mucosal areas that needed cleansing, water consumption for cleansing, time taken for examination, diminutive lesions, pathological diagnosis, patients' gag reflex and oxygenation (pulse oximetry) were recorded.. SP/LHM has significantly lower total visibility score than LHM (7.978 ± 1.526 vs 6.348 ± 1.097, P < 0.01). During the procedure, number of intragastric areas that needed cleansing and amount of water consumed were significantly less in the SP/LHM than in the LHM group (P < 0.01). In SP/LHM (P = 0.01), endoscopy procedure duration was significantly longer. Although there was no significant difference in rate of detection of diminutive lesions between LHM and SP/LHM, the endoscopist carried out more biopsies in SP/LHM. This led to a higher rate of diagnosis of atrophic gastritis (P = 0.014) and intestinal metaplasia (P = 0.024). There was no significant difference in gag reflex (P = 0.604) and oxygenation during the endoscopy procedure for either group of patients.. Routine use of premedication with simethicone/Pronase should be recommended during EGD with sedation. Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antifoaming Agents; Conscious Sedation; Early Detection of Cancer; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Premedication; Pronase; Prospective Studies; Simethicone; Single-Blind Method; Stomach Neoplasms; Young Adult | 2018 |
Effect of pronase as mucolytic agent on imaging quality of magnifying endoscopy.
To investigate the efficacy of premedication with pronase, a proteolytic enzyme, in improving image quality during magnifying endoscopy.. The study was of a blinded, randomized, prospective design. Patients were assigned to groups administered oral premedication of either pronase and simethicone (Group A) or simethicone alone (Group B). First, the gastric mucosal visibility grade (1-4) was determined during conventional endoscopy, and then a magnifying endoscopic examination was conducted. The quality of images obtained by magnifying endoscopy at the stomach and the esophagus was scored from 1 to 3, with a lower score indicating better visibility. The endoscopist used water flushes as needed to obtain satisfactory magnifying endoscopic views. The main study outcomes were the visibility scores during magnifying endoscopy and the number of water flushes.. A total of 144 patients were enrolled, and data from 143 patients (M:F=90:53, mean age 57.5 years) were analyzed. The visibility score was significantly higher in the stomach following premedication with pronase (73% with a score of 1 in Group A vs 49% in Group B, P<0.05), but there was no difference in the esophagus visibility scores (67% with a score of 1 in Group A vs 58% in Group B). Fewer water flushes [mean 0.7±0.9 times (range: 0-3 times) in Group A vs 1.9±1.5 times (range: 0-6 times) in Group B, P<0.05] in the pronase premedication group did not affect the endoscopic procedure times [mean 766 s (range: 647-866 s) for Group A vs 760 s (range: 678-854 s) for Group B, P=0.88]. The total gastric mucosal visibility score was also lower in Group A (4.9±1.5 vs 8.3±1.8 in Group B, P<0.01).. The addition of pronase to simethicone premedication resulted in clearer images during magnifying endoscopy and reduced the need for water flushes. Topics: Antifoaming Agents; China; Double-Blind Method; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagoscopy; Esophagus; Expectorants; Female; Gastric Mucosa; Gastroscopy; Humans; Image Enhancement; Male; Middle Aged; Predictive Value of Tests; Pronase; Prospective Studies; Simethicone; Stomach Neoplasms; Therapeutic Irrigation | 2015 |