Background/Aims: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of national healthcare, the amount of medical waste generated by GIE procedures is not reported in South Korea. This study aimed to measure the amount of medical waste generated from GIE procedures in South Korea. Methods: We conducted a 5-day audit of medical waste generated during GIEs at seven hospitals. During the study period, medical waste in the endoscopy examination rooms was measured twice daily and documented as mass (kg). To calculate the mean mass of disposable waste generated during one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and one colonoscopy, the mean mass of medical waste generated from seven examinations was calculated. The mean mass of medical waste generated during GIEs was calculated by dividing the total mass of medical waste generated by the number of GIE procedures. Results: Overall, 3,922 endoscopies were performed and 4,558 kg of waste was generated. The mean weight of medical waste generated per endoscopy was 1.34 kg. Each EGD and colonoscopy generated a mean of 0.24 kg and 0.43 kg of disposable waste, respectively. Applying the mean waste estimates from this study to annual GIE procedures performed in South Korea in 2022 showed that the total medical waste produced from GIE was 13,704,453 kg. In addition, the total masses of medical waste produced during EGD and colonoscopy procedures were 819,766 kg and 2,889,478 kg, respectively. Conclusions Our quantitative measurement showed that a large amount of medical waste is generated from GIE procedures. However, further research is warranted to reduce medical waste generated during GIE, which is an urgent unmet need.

Background/Aims: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of national healthcare, the amount of medical waste generated by GIE procedures is not reported in South Korea. This study aimed to measure the amount of medical waste generated from GIE procedures in South Korea. Methods: We conducted a 5-day audit of medical waste generated during GIEs at seven hospitals. During the study period, medical waste in the endoscopy examination rooms was measured twice daily and documented as mass (kg). To calculate the mean mass of disposable waste generated during one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and one colonoscopy, the mean mass of medical waste generated from seven examinations was calculated. The mean mass of medical waste generated during GIEs was calculated by dividing the total mass of medical waste generated by the number of GIE procedures. Results: Overall, 3,922 endoscopies were performed and 4,558 kg of waste was generated. The mean weight of medical waste generated per endoscopy was 1.34 kg. Each EGD and colonoscopy generated a mean of 0.24 kg and 0.43 kg of disposable waste, respectively. Applying the mean waste estimates from this study to annual GIE procedures performed in South Korea in 2022 showed that the total medical waste produced from GIE was 13,704,453 kg. In addition, the total masses of medical waste produced during EGD and colonoscopy procedures were 819,766 kg and 2,889,478 kg, respectively. Conclusions Our quantitative measurement showed that a large amount of medical waste is generated from GIE procedures. However, further research is warranted to reduce medical waste generated during GIE, which is an urgent unmet need.

Background/Aims: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of national healthcare, the amount of medical waste generated by GIE procedures is not reported in South Korea. This study aimed to measure the amount of medical waste generated from GIE procedures in South Korea. Methods: We conducted a 5-day audit of medical waste generated during GIEs at seven hospitals. During the study period, medical waste in the endoscopy examination rooms was measured twice daily and documented as mass (kg). To calculate the mean mass of disposable waste generated during one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and one colonoscopy, the mean mass of medical waste generated from seven examinations was calculated. The mean mass of medical waste generated during GIEs was calculated by dividing the total mass of medical waste generated by the number of GIE procedures. Results: Overall, 3,922 endoscopies were performed and 4,558 kg of waste was generated. The mean weight of medical waste generated per endoscopy was 1.34 kg. Each EGD and colonoscopy generated a mean of 0.24 kg and 0.43 kg of disposable waste, respectively. Applying the mean waste estimates from this study to annual GIE procedures performed in South Korea in 2022 showed that the total medical waste produced from GIE was 13,704,453 kg. In addition, the total masses of medical waste produced during EGD and colonoscopy procedures were 819,766 kg and 2,889,478 kg, respectively. Conclusions Our quantitative measurement showed that a large amount of medical waste is generated from GIE procedures. However, further research is warranted to reduce medical waste generated during GIE, which is an urgent unmet need.

Background/Aims: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of national healthcare, the amount of medical waste generated by GIE procedures is not reported in South Korea. This study aimed to measure the amount of medical waste generated from GIE procedures in South Korea. Methods: We conducted a 5-day audit of medical waste generated during GIEs at seven hospitals. During the study period, medical waste in the endoscopy examination rooms was measured twice daily and documented as mass (kg). To calculate the mean mass of disposable waste generated during one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and one colonoscopy, the mean mass of medical waste generated from seven examinations was calculated. The mean mass of medical waste generated during GIEs was calculated by dividing the total mass of medical waste generated by the number of GIE procedures. Results: Overall, 3,922 endoscopies were performed and 4,558 kg of waste was generated. The mean weight of medical waste generated per endoscopy was 1.34 kg. Each EGD and colonoscopy generated a mean of 0.24 kg and 0.43 kg of disposable waste, respectively. Applying the mean waste estimates from this study to annual GIE procedures performed in South Korea in 2022 showed that the total medical waste produced from GIE was 13,704,453 kg. In addition, the total masses of medical waste produced during EGD and colonoscopy procedures were 819,766 kg and 2,889,478 kg, respectively. Conclusions Our quantitative measurement showed that a large amount of medical waste is generated from GIE procedures. However, further research is warranted to reduce medical waste generated during GIE, which is an urgent unmet need.

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.

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.

Background/Aims: This study investigated whether the personality traits of endoscopists are associated with the effect of interventions for the improvement of colonoscopy quality. Methods: This prospective, multicenter, single-blind study was performed with 13 endoscopists in three health screening centers over a 12-month period. Quality indicators (QIs), including adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and withdrawal time, were measured every 3 months. Consecutive interventions for the improvement of colonoscopy quality were conducted every 3 months, which included the personal notification of QIs, the in-group notification of QIs, and finally a targeted “quality education” session. The personality traits of each endoscopist were evaluated for perfectionism, fear of negative evaluation, and cognitive flexibility after the last QI assessment. Results: A total of 4,095 colonoscopies were evaluated to measure the QIs of the individual endoscopists for 12 months. The mean ADR, PDR, and withdrawal time of the 13 endoscopists were 32.3%, 47.7%, and 394 seconds at baseline and increased to 39.0%, 55.1%, and 430 seconds by the end of the study (p=0.003, p=0.006, and p=0.004, respectively). Among the three interventions, only quality education significantly improved QIs: ADR, 36.0% to 39.0% (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.63). The improvement of ADR and PDR by education was significantly associated with perfectionism (r=0.617, p=0.033 and r=0.635, p=0.027, respectively) and fear of negative evaluation (r=0.704, p=0.011 and r=0.761, p=0.004, respectively). Conclusions Education can improve colonoscopy quality, and its effect size is associated with an endoscopist’s personal traits such as perfectionism and fear of negative evaluation (ClinicalTrials.gov Registry NCT03796169).

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.

Objective: The Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) is a relatively specific test for bipolar disorders designed to assess the main functioning problems experienced by patients. This brief instrument includes 24 items assessing impairment or disability in 6 domains of functioning: autonomy, occupational functioning, cognitive functioning, financial issues, interpersonal relationships, and leisure time. It has already been translated into standardized versions in several languages. The aim of this study is to measure the validity and reliability of the Korean version of FAST (K-FAST). Methods: A total of 209 bipolar disorder patients were recruited from 14 centers in Korea. K-FAST, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument Brief Form (WHOQOL-BREF) were administered, and psychometric analysis of the K-FAST was conducted. Results: The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the K-FAST was 0.95. Test-retest reliability analysis showed a strong correlation between the two measures assessed at a 1-week interval (ICC = 0.97; p ＜ 0.001). The K-FAST exhibited significant correlations with GAF (r = −0.771), WHOQOL-BREF (r = −0.326), YMRS (r = 0.509) and BDRS (r = 0.598). A strong negative correlation with GAF pointed to a reasonable degree of concurrent validity. Although the exploratory factor analysis showed four factors, the confirmatory factor analysis of questionnaires had a good fit for a six factors model (CFI = 0.925; TLI = 0.912; RMSEA = 0.078). Conclusion The K-FAST has good psychometric properties, good internal consistency, and can be applicable and acceptable to the Korean context.

The objective of this study was to compare recommendations of the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder 2022 (KMAP-BP 2022) with other recently published guidelines for treating bipolar disorder. We reviewed a total of six recently published global treatment guidelines and compared treatment recommendation of the KMAP-BP 2022 with those of other guidelines. For initial treatment of mania, there were no significant differences across treatment guidelines. All guidelines recommended mood stabilizer (MS) or atypical antipsychotic (AAP) monotherapy or a combination of an MS with an AAP as a first-line treatment strategy in a same degree for mania. However, the KMAP-BP 2022 recommended MS + AAP combination therapy for psychotic mania, mixed mania and psychotic depression as treatment of choice. Aripiprazole, quetiapine and olanzapine were the first-line AAPs for nearly all phases of bipolar disorder across guidelines. Some guideline suggested olanzapine is a second-line options during maintenance treatment, related to concern about long-term tolerability. Most guidelines advocated newer AAPs (asenapine, cariprazine, long-acting injectable risperidone, and aripiprazole once monthly) as first-line treatment options for all phases while lamotrigine was recommended for depressive and maintenance phases. Lithium and valproic acid were commonly used as MSs in all phases of bipolar disorder. KMAP-BP 2022 guidelines were similar to other guidelines, reflecting current changes in prescription patterns for bipolar disorder based on accumulated research data. Strong preference for combination therapy was characteristic of KMAP-BP 2022, predominantly in the treatment of psychotic mania, mixed mania and psychotic depression.