Administration of maximum dose of mucolytic solution before upper endoscopy - a double-blind, randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to demonstrate that an administration of mucolytic solution with a maximum dose of simethicone and n -acetylcysteine before upper endoscopy improves mucosal visibility compared to a group without administration of mucolytic solution or water. METHODS: This study was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized into four groups, with the administration of 100 ml of water + 600 mg n -acetylcysteine + 400 mg simethicone, 100 ml of water + 400 mg n -acetylcysteine + 20 mg simethicone, 100 ml of water, and without any water or mucolytic solution. During the examination, a total of 10 images were taken in the defined areas. The overall visibility score was given by the sum of the 0-5 scores of the five areas and was assessed by the endoscopist performing the procedure and the blinded endoscopists using static images. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients were randomized. The group of patients did not differ in age, sex distribution, and indications significantly. The overall visibility score as assessed by the endoscopist performing the procedure was significantly higher in the group with the maximum dose of mucolytic solution compared to the group without solution or water (18.9 ±â€…2.9 vs. 16.6 ±â€…3.3, P  = 0.023). This difference was not evident by the blinded evaluation of static photographs. CONCLUSION: Administration of mucolytic solution with a maximum dose of n -acetylcysteine and simethicone before upper endoscopy improved mucosal visibility in the upper gastrointestinal tract compared with the group without any preparation while evaluated by performing endoscopist.

Administration of mucolytic solution before upper endoscopy - double-blind, monocentric, randomized study.

AIMS: Sufficient visibility of the mucosa during upper endoscopy is crucial for successful diagnosis, especially for early neoplastic lesions. Data documenting the effect of administration of mucolytic solution prior to gastroscopy in order to improve mucosal visibility are limited in Europe. The aim of the study was to assess the score of mucosal visibility in the upper gastrointestinal tract after administration of the mucolytic solution defined by us. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a monocentric, double-blind, randomized study involving 134 patients indicated for diagnostic upper endoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three arms, with mucolytic solution (100 mL water + 400 mg N-acetylcysteine + 20 mg simethicone), without the solution , and with 100 mL pure water. During the examination, 11 photographs were taken in defined areas. The visibility score was given by the sum of the score 0-5 from 5 defined localities evaluated by a blinded endoscopist and subsequently by two blinded endoscopists. Other parameters monitored were examination time and a semiquantitative evaluation of residual gastric fluid. RESULTS: The basic characteristics of the group (sex, age, indications for examination) were comparable between arms. The visibility score was similar in all arms - 17.4 ± 1.9 vs. 17.0 ± 2.0 vs. 17.6 ± 1.8 (P=0.32). The examination time and the amount of residual fluid in the stomach were comparable in all arms. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of the mucolytic solution in our study did not increase the mucosal visibility score in the esophagus, stomach and duodenum. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02967094.

The role of abdominal ultrasonography in patients with isoattenuating pancreatic carcinoma.

AIMS: The main objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity of abdominal ultrasonography (US) in patients with isoattenuating pancreatic carcinoma and to compare the frequency of secondary signs on abdominal US and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in these tumours. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with histologically or cytologically verified isoattenuating pancreatic carcinoma who underwent abdominal US, contrast-enhanced CT and EUS of the pancreas as part of the diagnostic workup were included in this retrospective study. The sensitivity of abdominal US in detecting the isoattenuating pancreatic carcinoma was investigated and the frequency of secondary signs of isoattenuating pancreatic carcinoma on abdominal US and EUS was compared. RESULTS: In 5 of 24 patients (21%) with isoattenuating pancreatic carcinoma, a hypoechogenic pancreatic lesion was directly visualised on abdominal US. Secondary signs were present on US in 21 patients (88%). These included dilatation of the common bile duct and/or intrahepatic bile ducts in 19/24 (79%), dilatation of the pancreatic duct in 3/24 (13%), abnormal contour/inhomogeneity of the pancreas in 1/24 (4%), and atrophy of the distal parenchyma in 1/24 (4%). Pancreatic duct dilatation was observed more frequently on EUS than on abdominal US (P=0.002). For other secondary signs, there was no significant difference in their detection on abdominal US and EUS (P=0.61-1.00). CONCLUSION: Abdominal US is capable of detecting secondary signs of isoattenuating pancreatic carcinoma with high sensitivity and has the potential to directly visualise these tumours.