TY - JOUR
T1 - Tolerability and efficacy of the concentration of iodine solution during esophageal chromoendoscopy
T2 - a double-blind randomized controlled trial
AU - Gotoda, Tatsuhiro
AU - Kanzaki, Hiromitsu
AU - Okamoto, Yuki
AU - Obayashi, Yuka
AU - Baba, Yuki
AU - Hamada, Kenta
AU - Sakae, Hiroyuki
AU - Abe, Makoto
AU - Iwamuro, Masaya
AU - Kawano, Seiji
AU - Kawahara, Yoshiro
AU - Okada, Hiroyuki
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - Background and Aims: Esophageal chromoendoscopy with iodine solution is an important diagnostic method for the detection of superficial esophageal cancer. However, the concentration of iodine solution has differed among reports. This study aimed to evaluate patient discomfort with different iodine concentrations. Methods: We performed a prospective, double-blind, randomized study. We prospectively enrolled and analyzed 77 patients who were at high risk for esophageal carcinoma and scheduled to undergo EGD from March 2018 to January 2019. All patients were divided into 2 groups before the procedure to compare pain measurements: a 1% iodine solution group (group A) and a 2% iodine solution group (group B). The primary endpoint of this study was the difference in pain measurement between 1% and 2% iodine solution chromoendoscopy. Secondary endpoints were safety, detection yield, and color evaluation based on both the endoscopist's survey and color values, as determined using the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIELAB, Vienna, Austria) color evaluation system, in the iodine-faded and iodine-stained area of each group. Results: Heartburn and retrosternal pain in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (P = .02). Eleven patients reported heartburn and retrosternal pain (group A, 2; group B, 9). Four patients reported pain above the sternal angle and 7 below the sternal angle. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with regard to detection yield, color evaluation by the endoscopist's assessment, or color values. No patients had any adverse events, and all safely completed this study. Conclusions: The 2% iodine solution resulted in significantly greater pain than the 1% iodine solution, and the color of the stained esophageal images of each group was the same from this study. Therefore, the 1% iodine solution is recommended for esophageal chromoendoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000029796.)
AB - Background and Aims: Esophageal chromoendoscopy with iodine solution is an important diagnostic method for the detection of superficial esophageal cancer. However, the concentration of iodine solution has differed among reports. This study aimed to evaluate patient discomfort with different iodine concentrations. Methods: We performed a prospective, double-blind, randomized study. We prospectively enrolled and analyzed 77 patients who were at high risk for esophageal carcinoma and scheduled to undergo EGD from March 2018 to January 2019. All patients were divided into 2 groups before the procedure to compare pain measurements: a 1% iodine solution group (group A) and a 2% iodine solution group (group B). The primary endpoint of this study was the difference in pain measurement between 1% and 2% iodine solution chromoendoscopy. Secondary endpoints were safety, detection yield, and color evaluation based on both the endoscopist's survey and color values, as determined using the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIELAB, Vienna, Austria) color evaluation system, in the iodine-faded and iodine-stained area of each group. Results: Heartburn and retrosternal pain in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (P = .02). Eleven patients reported heartburn and retrosternal pain (group A, 2; group B, 9). Four patients reported pain above the sternal angle and 7 below the sternal angle. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with regard to detection yield, color evaluation by the endoscopist's assessment, or color values. No patients had any adverse events, and all safely completed this study. Conclusions: The 2% iodine solution resulted in significantly greater pain than the 1% iodine solution, and the color of the stained esophageal images of each group was the same from this study. Therefore, the 1% iodine solution is recommended for esophageal chromoendoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000029796.)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076511716&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85076511716&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2019.10.022
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2019.10.022
M3 - Article
C2 - 31669091
AN - SCOPUS:85076511716
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 91
SP - 763
EP - 770
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
IS - 4
ER -