The effect of quality of segmental bowel preparation on adenoma detection rate.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness in surveillance colonoscopy largely depends on the quality of bowel preparation. We aimed to investigate the quality of bowel preparation segmentally and its effect on Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rate (AADR) at corresponding bowel segments. METHODS: This is a single-centered and cross-sectional study. A consecutive of 5798 patients who underwent colonoscopy examination were included. Bowel preparation was evaluated based on Bowel Bubble Scale (BBS) in general and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in each segment (right side, transverse and left side of colon) and total BBPS scores. The quality of bowel preparation was correlated with ADR and AADR. RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred forty colonoscopies (14,820 bowel segments) were included in the final analysis. In which 30.9% scored 3, 57.5% scored 2, 11.2% scored 1 and 0.4% scored 0 on basis of BBPS. For each score, ADR were 10.8, 7.7, 4.9 and 3.2%, respectively; whereas AADR were 4.5, 2.8,1.8 and 1.6% (P < 0.05). 36.9% of the colonoscopies showed presence of minimal bubbles and 34.3% with no bubble. For bowels without bubbles and with a large amount of bubbles, ADR were 28.3 and 20.0% respectively; and AADR were 13.3 and 7.1% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Segmental bowels' cleanliness and the amount of bubbles in bowels significantly affect ADR and AADR. The better the bowel preparation at each segment is and the less bubbles in the bowel there are, the higher ADR and AADR we got. We suggest repeating colonoscopy if any segment of the bowel preparation is poor, or if there is more bubbles, even if the total score of BBPS indicates good or fair bowel preparation.

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.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of premedication with simethicone/Pronase during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with sedation. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: Routine use of premedication with simethicone/Pronase should be recommended during EGD with sedation.

A Simple, Time-Saving Dye Staining of Proteins in Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate-Polyacrylamide Gel Using Coomassie Blue.

Most traditional post-electrophoretic processes need several hours to several days to finish the whole staining process and traditional staining solutions all contain methanol, acetic acid, or phosphoric acid, which not only produce the unpleasant smell but also cause environmental pollution. Here a fixation-free, fast protein staining method in sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis using Coomassie blue is described. The protocol includes only staining and quick washing steps, can be completed in 0.5 h. It has a sensitivity of 10 ng. In addition, the dye stain does not contain any acid or methanol.