Objectives: The standard first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection typically involves proton pump inhibitors, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin (PAC), yet the eradication success rates are not entirely satisfactory. Recognizing bismuth’s antibacterial properties and its potential to enhance antibiotic efficacy, this study compared the eradication success rates of a 7-day course of PAC with bismuth (PACB) versus PAC alone in patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infections. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review at Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital involving 499 patients with confirmed clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infection. These patients were treated either with PACB or PAC for 7 days. Clarithromycin resistance-associated point mutations were evaluated using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Successful eradication was confirmed by a negative 13C-urea breath test. Results: Of the patients, 261 received PACB therapy, and 238 received PAC therapy. The intention-to-treat analysis showed eradication success rates of 82.8% (216/261) for PACB and 89.1% (212/238) for PAC (p=0.093). The per-protocol analysis revealed eradication rates of 85.3% (215/252) for PACB and 90.5% (210/232) for PAC (p=0.081). The incidence of adverse effects was similar between the two groups, with 41.3% (104/252) in the PACB group and 34.1% (79/232) in the PAC group (p=0.102). Conclusions Adding bismuth to the standard 7-day PAC regimen did not significantly increase eradication rates in patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infections compared to PAC alone.

Objectives: The standard first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection typically involves proton pump inhibitors, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin (PAC), yet the eradication success rates are not entirely satisfactory. Recognizing bismuth’s antibacterial properties and its potential to enhance antibiotic efficacy, this study compared the eradication success rates of a 7-day course of PAC with bismuth (PACB) versus PAC alone in patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infections. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review at Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital involving 499 patients with confirmed clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infection. These patients were treated either with PACB or PAC for 7 days. Clarithromycin resistance-associated point mutations were evaluated using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Successful eradication was confirmed by a negative 13C-urea breath test. Results: Of the patients, 261 received PACB therapy, and 238 received PAC therapy. The intention-to-treat analysis showed eradication success rates of 82.8% (216/261) for PACB and 89.1% (212/238) for PAC (p=0.093). The per-protocol analysis revealed eradication rates of 85.3% (215/252) for PACB and 90.5% (210/232) for PAC (p=0.081). The incidence of adverse effects was similar between the two groups, with 41.3% (104/252) in the PACB group and 34.1% (79/232) in the PAC group (p=0.102). Conclusions Adding bismuth to the standard 7-day PAC regimen did not significantly increase eradication rates in patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infections compared to PAC alone.

Objectives: The standard first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection typically involves proton pump inhibitors, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin (PAC), yet the eradication success rates are not entirely satisfactory. Recognizing bismuth’s antibacterial properties and its potential to enhance antibiotic efficacy, this study compared the eradication success rates of a 7-day course of PAC with bismuth (PACB) versus PAC alone in patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infections. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review at Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital involving 499 patients with confirmed clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infection. These patients were treated either with PACB or PAC for 7 days. Clarithromycin resistance-associated point mutations were evaluated using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Successful eradication was confirmed by a negative 13C-urea breath test. Results: Of the patients, 261 received PACB therapy, and 238 received PAC therapy. The intention-to-treat analysis showed eradication success rates of 82.8% (216/261) for PACB and 89.1% (212/238) for PAC (p=0.093). The per-protocol analysis revealed eradication rates of 85.3% (215/252) for PACB and 90.5% (210/232) for PAC (p=0.081). The incidence of adverse effects was similar between the two groups, with 41.3% (104/252) in the PACB group and 34.1% (79/232) in the PAC group (p=0.102). Conclusions Adding bismuth to the standard 7-day PAC regimen did not significantly increase eradication rates in patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infections compared to PAC alone.

Objectives: The standard first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection typically involves proton pump inhibitors, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin (PAC), yet the eradication success rates are not entirely satisfactory. Recognizing bismuth’s antibacterial properties and its potential to enhance antibiotic efficacy, this study compared the eradication success rates of a 7-day course of PAC with bismuth (PACB) versus PAC alone in patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infections. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review at Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital involving 499 patients with confirmed clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infection. These patients were treated either with PACB or PAC for 7 days. Clarithromycin resistance-associated point mutations were evaluated using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Successful eradication was confirmed by a negative 13C-urea breath test. Results: Of the patients, 261 received PACB therapy, and 238 received PAC therapy. The intention-to-treat analysis showed eradication success rates of 82.8% (216/261) for PACB and 89.1% (212/238) for PAC (p=0.093). The per-protocol analysis revealed eradication rates of 85.3% (215/252) for PACB and 90.5% (210/232) for PAC (p=0.081). The incidence of adverse effects was similar between the two groups, with 41.3% (104/252) in the PACB group and 34.1% (79/232) in the PAC group (p=0.102). Conclusions Adding bismuth to the standard 7-day PAC regimen did not significantly increase eradication rates in patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infections compared to PAC alone.

Objectives: The standard first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection typically involves proton pump inhibitors, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin (PAC), yet the eradication success rates are not entirely satisfactory. Recognizing bismuth’s antibacterial properties and its potential to enhance antibiotic efficacy, this study compared the eradication success rates of a 7-day course of PAC with bismuth (PACB) versus PAC alone in patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infections. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review at Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital involving 499 patients with confirmed clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infection. These patients were treated either with PACB or PAC for 7 days. Clarithromycin resistance-associated point mutations were evaluated using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Successful eradication was confirmed by a negative 13C-urea breath test. Results: Of the patients, 261 received PACB therapy, and 238 received PAC therapy. The intention-to-treat analysis showed eradication success rates of 82.8% (216/261) for PACB and 89.1% (212/238) for PAC (p=0.093). The per-protocol analysis revealed eradication rates of 85.3% (215/252) for PACB and 90.5% (210/232) for PAC (p=0.081). The incidence of adverse effects was similar between the two groups, with 41.3% (104/252) in the PACB group and 34.1% (79/232) in the PAC group (p=0.102). Conclusions Adding bismuth to the standard 7-day PAC regimen did not significantly increase eradication rates in patients with clarithromycin-susceptible H. pylori infections compared to PAC alone.

Background: Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a serious complication of polypectomy that is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis in managing DPPB and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 289 patients who experienced DPPB (≥ 24 hours after polypectomy) and underwent endoscopic hemostasis at five university hospitals between 2005 and 2018. Patient characteristics, polyp size, technical factors, rebleeding, complications, and length of hospitalization were assessed. Results: Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all 289 cases of DPPB. The techniques and devices employed included epinephrine injection (24.9%), argon plasma coagulation (18.0%), hemostatic forceps (10.7%), and hemoclips (87.9%). Rebleeding occurred in 15 cases (5.2%) after initial endoscopic hemostasis. The incidence of rebleeding was significantly associated with polyp size (< 10 mm: 2.8%, 10 mm–19 mm: 5.6%, ≥ 20 mm: 13.5%, P = 0.030) and sedation status (yes: 1.8%, no: 7.3%, P = 0.040). However, hemostasis method, bleeding characteristics, and polyp location were not significantly linked to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp size (odds ratio, 5.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–20.13; P = 0.023) was significantly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. In all 15 cases of rebleeding, a second endoscopic hemostasis was successfully performed without the need for embolization or surgical intervention. No perforations occurred during the first or second endoscopic hemostatic procedures. Conclusion Polyp size and sedation status were associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. As an intervention for DPPB, endoscopic hemostasis appears safe and effective.

This case report aims to document and analyze a unique instance of functional dysphonia with diminished vocal cord movement observed in a patient following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The study focuses on the outcomes of a one-month voice treatment regimen administered to alleviate the dysphonic symptoms. The findings provide valuable insights into the management of post-COVID-19 vocal impairments and contribute to the growing body of knowledge on the varied manifestations of this viral infection.

Background: Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a serious complication of polypectomy that is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis in managing DPPB and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 289 patients who experienced DPPB (≥ 24 hours after polypectomy) and underwent endoscopic hemostasis at five university hospitals between 2005 and 2018. Patient characteristics, polyp size, technical factors, rebleeding, complications, and length of hospitalization were assessed. Results: Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all 289 cases of DPPB. The techniques and devices employed included epinephrine injection (24.9%), argon plasma coagulation (18.0%), hemostatic forceps (10.7%), and hemoclips (87.9%). Rebleeding occurred in 15 cases (5.2%) after initial endoscopic hemostasis. The incidence of rebleeding was significantly associated with polyp size (< 10 mm: 2.8%, 10 mm–19 mm: 5.6%, ≥ 20 mm: 13.5%, P = 0.030) and sedation status (yes: 1.8%, no: 7.3%, P = 0.040). However, hemostasis method, bleeding characteristics, and polyp location were not significantly linked to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp size (odds ratio, 5.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–20.13; P = 0.023) was significantly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. In all 15 cases of rebleeding, a second endoscopic hemostasis was successfully performed without the need for embolization or surgical intervention. No perforations occurred during the first or second endoscopic hemostatic procedures. Conclusion Polyp size and sedation status were associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. As an intervention for DPPB, endoscopic hemostasis appears safe and effective.

This case report aims to document and analyze a unique instance of functional dysphonia with diminished vocal cord movement observed in a patient following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The study focuses on the outcomes of a one-month voice treatment regimen administered to alleviate the dysphonic symptoms. The findings provide valuable insights into the management of post-COVID-19 vocal impairments and contribute to the growing body of knowledge on the varied manifestations of this viral infection.

Background: Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a serious complication of polypectomy that is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic hemostasis in managing DPPB and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 289 patients who experienced DPPB (≥ 24 hours after polypectomy) and underwent endoscopic hemostasis at five university hospitals between 2005 and 2018. Patient characteristics, polyp size, technical factors, rebleeding, complications, and length of hospitalization were assessed. Results: Endoscopic hemostasis was successful in all 289 cases of DPPB. The techniques and devices employed included epinephrine injection (24.9%), argon plasma coagulation (18.0%), hemostatic forceps (10.7%), and hemoclips (87.9%). Rebleeding occurred in 15 cases (5.2%) after initial endoscopic hemostasis. The incidence of rebleeding was significantly associated with polyp size (< 10 mm: 2.8%, 10 mm–19 mm: 5.6%, ≥ 20 mm: 13.5%, P = 0.030) and sedation status (yes: 1.8%, no: 7.3%, P = 0.040). However, hemostasis method, bleeding characteristics, and polyp location were not significantly linked to rebleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp size (odds ratio, 5.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–20.13; P = 0.023) was significantly associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. In all 15 cases of rebleeding, a second endoscopic hemostasis was successfully performed without the need for embolization or surgical intervention. No perforations occurred during the first or second endoscopic hemostatic procedures. Conclusion Polyp size and sedation status were associated with rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis for DPPB. As an intervention for DPPB, endoscopic hemostasis appears safe and effective.