Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background/Aims: We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Methods: From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines. Results: Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4–9 years, and ≥10 years of experiencein colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4–5 mm (61.0%) and 6–9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10–19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20–25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions. Conclusions Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depend-ing on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) caused by multidrug-resistant organisms have emerged as a significant global issue, posing substantial challenges to healthcare systems. Low- and intermediate-level disinfectants are extensively utilized for cleaning and disinfecting surfaces in hospitals to mitigate environmental transmission of HAI. Therefore, the need for more effective and environmentally safe disinfectants is increasing.This study aimed to assess the effect of antimicrobial wipes used for surface cleaning and disinfection in healthcare environments. Materials and Methods: A microbe library comprising 188 bacterial and fungal isolates, including multidrug-resistant strains, was established and used to evaluate the antimicrobial effect of three types of antimicrobial wipes:A (didecyldimethylammonium chloride [DDAC] 0.31% and 3-(trimethoxysilyl)-propyldimethyloctadecyl ammonium chloride [Si-QAC] 0.45%); B (benzalkonium chloride [BAK] 0.63%); and C (DDAC 0.5% and BAK 0.9%). The antimicrobial effect of the wipes was assessed and compared in three assays: rapid bactericidal effect assay of the three wipes, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay of DDAC and BAK, and a time-kill assay of the DDAC and Si-QAC combination. Results: The rapid antimicrobial effect evaluation showed that both wipes A and C, which contain a combination of two quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), exhibited similar antimicrobial effect (P=0.8234). Antimicrobial wipe A demonstrated better effect against Gram-positive bacteria and fungi than wipe C (P <0.05). The antimicrobial efficacy of the A wipe against Mycobacterium strains was superior to that of both the B and C wipes. Moreover, DDAC exhibited MIC50 values that were 2 to 3-fold lower than those of BAK for Gram-negative bacteria and fungi.The time-kill assay results for the DDAC and Si-QAC combination exhibited a growth reduction of >3 logs for Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecium, whereas approximately 2 logs of reduction was observed for Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at 3 hour. Conclusion The results suggest that antimicrobial wipes containing relatively lower concentrations of QAC (wipe A) achieve similar rapid bactericidal effect as that of those with higher concentrations (wipe C). For Gram-negative bacteria, including multidrug-resistant strains and fungal isolates, DDAC presented lower MICs compared with BAK. Furthermore, the combination therapy with DDAC and Si-QAC demonstrated enhanced efficacy compared to treatment with either agent alone, except in the case of Klebsiella strains. Further research is needed to develop antimicrobial wipes that minimize the environmental impact while ensuring effective disinfection.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) caused by multidrug-resistant organisms have emerged as a significant global issue, posing substantial challenges to healthcare systems. Low- and intermediate-level disinfectants are extensively utilized for cleaning and disinfecting surfaces in hospitals to mitigate environmental transmission of HAI. Therefore, the need for more effective and environmentally safe disinfectants is increasing.This study aimed to assess the effect of antimicrobial wipes used for surface cleaning and disinfection in healthcare environments. Materials and Methods: A microbe library comprising 188 bacterial and fungal isolates, including multidrug-resistant strains, was established and used to evaluate the antimicrobial effect of three types of antimicrobial wipes:A (didecyldimethylammonium chloride [DDAC] 0.31% and 3-(trimethoxysilyl)-propyldimethyloctadecyl ammonium chloride [Si-QAC] 0.45%); B (benzalkonium chloride [BAK] 0.63%); and C (DDAC 0.5% and BAK 0.9%). The antimicrobial effect of the wipes was assessed and compared in three assays: rapid bactericidal effect assay of the three wipes, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay of DDAC and BAK, and a time-kill assay of the DDAC and Si-QAC combination. Results: The rapid antimicrobial effect evaluation showed that both wipes A and C, which contain a combination of two quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), exhibited similar antimicrobial effect (P=0.8234). Antimicrobial wipe A demonstrated better effect against Gram-positive bacteria and fungi than wipe C (P <0.05). The antimicrobial efficacy of the A wipe against Mycobacterium strains was superior to that of both the B and C wipes. Moreover, DDAC exhibited MIC50 values that were 2 to 3-fold lower than those of BAK for Gram-negative bacteria and fungi.The time-kill assay results for the DDAC and Si-QAC combination exhibited a growth reduction of >3 logs for Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecium, whereas approximately 2 logs of reduction was observed for Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at 3 hour. Conclusion The results suggest that antimicrobial wipes containing relatively lower concentrations of QAC (wipe A) achieve similar rapid bactericidal effect as that of those with higher concentrations (wipe C). For Gram-negative bacteria, including multidrug-resistant strains and fungal isolates, DDAC presented lower MICs compared with BAK. Furthermore, the combination therapy with DDAC and Si-QAC demonstrated enhanced efficacy compared to treatment with either agent alone, except in the case of Klebsiella strains. Further research is needed to develop antimicrobial wipes that minimize the environmental impact while ensuring effective disinfection.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) caused by multidrug-resistant organisms have emerged as a significant global issue, posing substantial challenges to healthcare systems. Low- and intermediate-level disinfectants are extensively utilized for cleaning and disinfecting surfaces in hospitals to mitigate environmental transmission of HAI. Therefore, the need for more effective and environmentally safe disinfectants is increasing.This study aimed to assess the effect of antimicrobial wipes used for surface cleaning and disinfection in healthcare environments. Materials and Methods: A microbe library comprising 188 bacterial and fungal isolates, including multidrug-resistant strains, was established and used to evaluate the antimicrobial effect of three types of antimicrobial wipes:A (didecyldimethylammonium chloride [DDAC] 0.31% and 3-(trimethoxysilyl)-propyldimethyloctadecyl ammonium chloride [Si-QAC] 0.45%); B (benzalkonium chloride [BAK] 0.63%); and C (DDAC 0.5% and BAK 0.9%). The antimicrobial effect of the wipes was assessed and compared in three assays: rapid bactericidal effect assay of the three wipes, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay of DDAC and BAK, and a time-kill assay of the DDAC and Si-QAC combination. Results: The rapid antimicrobial effect evaluation showed that both wipes A and C, which contain a combination of two quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), exhibited similar antimicrobial effect (P=0.8234). Antimicrobial wipe A demonstrated better effect against Gram-positive bacteria and fungi than wipe C (P <0.05). The antimicrobial efficacy of the A wipe against Mycobacterium strains was superior to that of both the B and C wipes. Moreover, DDAC exhibited MIC50 values that were 2 to 3-fold lower than those of BAK for Gram-negative bacteria and fungi.The time-kill assay results for the DDAC and Si-QAC combination exhibited a growth reduction of >3 logs for Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecium, whereas approximately 2 logs of reduction was observed for Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at 3 hour. Conclusion The results suggest that antimicrobial wipes containing relatively lower concentrations of QAC (wipe A) achieve similar rapid bactericidal effect as that of those with higher concentrations (wipe C). For Gram-negative bacteria, including multidrug-resistant strains and fungal isolates, DDAC presented lower MICs compared with BAK. Furthermore, the combination therapy with DDAC and Si-QAC demonstrated enhanced efficacy compared to treatment with either agent alone, except in the case of Klebsiella strains. Further research is needed to develop antimicrobial wipes that minimize the environmental impact while ensuring effective disinfection.