Background and Aim:Low-volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) use is reported to be as safe and effective as traditional 4-L polyethylene glycol use. However, PEG-Asc produces bubbles, which cause problems during colonoscopy. Data on the effects of using antifoaming agents such as simethicone with PEG-Asc are lacking. The aim of this CONSORT-prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, controlled trial is to compare the quality of bowel preparation and compliance between PEG-Asc users and PEG-Asc plus simethicone users.Methods:Adult outpatients aged 18 to 80 years undergoing colonoscopy were recruited to the study. Two hundred sixty patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment arms, PEG-Asc or PEG-Asc plus simethicone. The primary outcome measure was the bowel cleansing quality using Boston bowel preparation scale and bubble scores. The secondary outcome measures were patient tolerability and doctor tolerability.Results:The simethicone group showed superior cleansing results (6–9 Boston scale scores: 99% vs. 84%, <5% bubble scores: 96% vs. 49%, P < 0.001) and fewer gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal fullness: 24% vs. 55%, colicky pain: 5% vs. 24%, P < 0.001) than the non-simethicone group. Moreover, endoscopist fatigue during colonoscopy was lower in the simethicone group than in the non-simethicone group (1.31 ± 0.75 vs. 2.97 ± 2.14, P < 0.001).Conclusion:PEG-Asc plus simethicone use was more effective and associated with better patient and endoscopist tolerance than PEG-Asc use. Therefore, this combination is recommended as one of the promising methods for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Bowel preparation with PEG resulted in better image quality than fasting alone. No significant difference was observed between 2 and 4 l. PEG 2 l rather than 4 l may be a useful method of preparation for CE.

The PHES was useful for detecting patients with MHE. A significant proportion of Korean patients with liver cirrhosis suffer from MHE.

Background/AimsEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful for obtaining pancreatic mass samples. The combination of modified techniques (i.e., slow-pull technique and fanning technique) may improve the quality of the sample obtained by EUS-FNA. We investigated the effectiveness of a combined slow-pull fanning technique in EUS-FNA for pancreatic mass.MethodsThis prospective comparative study investigated EUS-FNA performed for pancreatic solid masses between August 2015 and July 2016. Pairwise specimens were alternately obtained using the following two techniques for targeted pancreatic lesions: standard suction or slow-pull with fanning. We compared the specimen quality, blood contamination, and diagnostic accuracy of these techniques.ResultsForty-eight consecutive patients were included (29 men; mean age, 68.1±11.9 years), and 96 pancreatic mass specimens were obtained. The slow-pull with fanning technique had a significantly superior diagnostic accuracy than the suction technique (88% vs 71%, p=0.044). Furthermore, blood contamination was significantly reduced using the slow-pull with fanning technique (ratio of no or slight contamination, 77% vs 56%, p=0.041). No difference was observed in the acquisition of adequate cellularity between the groups. In the subgroup analysis, the tumor size and sampling technique were related to the EUS-FNA diagnostic accuracy.ConclusionsThe slow-pull with needle fanning technique showed a good diagnostic yield for EUS-FNA for pancreatic mass. This technique can be useful for performing EUS-guided sampling for diagnosing pancreatic disease.

No abstract