Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a condition characterized by a mechanical obstruction of the stomach or duodenum, caused by either benign or malignant disease. Traditionally, surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) has been the standard treatment for malignant GOO and endoscopic stenting (ES) offers a less invasive option, but it often requires repeat interventions. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), an innovative technique, has been applied as an alternative to SGJ and ES for GOO patients. Direct EUS-GE, device-associated EUS-GE, and EUS-guided double balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass are the most commonly used techniques with reported technical success rates ranging from 80% to 100%, and clinical success rates between 68% and 100%. Adverse event (AE) rates range from 0% to 28.2% and the stent misdeployment is the most common while other AEs include abdominal pain, bleeding, infection, peritonitis, bowel perforation, gastric leakage, and stent migration. It is clear that EUS-GE may achieve a similar clinical success to SGJ with fewer AEs and a shorter hospital stay. Compared to ES, EUS-GE showed higher clinical success, fewer stent obstructions, and lower reintervention rates.

Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a condition characterized by a mechanical obstruction of the stomach or duodenum, caused by either benign or malignant disease. Traditionally, surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) has been the standard treatment for malignant GOO and endoscopic stenting (ES) offers a less invasive option, but it often requires repeat interventions. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), an innovative technique, has been applied as an alternative to SGJ and ES for GOO patients. Direct EUS-GE, device-associated EUS-GE, and EUS-guided double balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass are the most commonly used techniques with reported technical success rates ranging from 80% to 100%, and clinical success rates between 68% and 100%. Adverse event (AE) rates range from 0% to 28.2% and the stent misdeployment is the most common while other AEs include abdominal pain, bleeding, infection, peritonitis, bowel perforation, gastric leakage, and stent migration. It is clear that EUS-GE may achieve a similar clinical success to SGJ with fewer AEs and a shorter hospital stay. Compared to ES, EUS-GE showed higher clinical success, fewer stent obstructions, and lower reintervention rates.

Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a condition characterized by a mechanical obstruction of the stomach or duodenum, caused by either benign or malignant disease. Traditionally, surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) has been the standard treatment for malignant GOO and endoscopic stenting (ES) offers a less invasive option, but it often requires repeat interventions. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), an innovative technique, has been applied as an alternative to SGJ and ES for GOO patients. Direct EUS-GE, device-associated EUS-GE, and EUS-guided double balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass are the most commonly used techniques with reported technical success rates ranging from 80% to 100%, and clinical success rates between 68% and 100%. Adverse event (AE) rates range from 0% to 28.2% and the stent misdeployment is the most common while other AEs include abdominal pain, bleeding, infection, peritonitis, bowel perforation, gastric leakage, and stent migration. It is clear that EUS-GE may achieve a similar clinical success to SGJ with fewer AEs and a shorter hospital stay. Compared to ES, EUS-GE showed higher clinical success, fewer stent obstructions, and lower reintervention rates.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is an increasingly common liver disease worldwide. MAFLD is diagnosed based on the presence of steatosis on images, histological findings, or serum marker levels as well as the presence of at least one of the three metabolic features: overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and metabolic risk factors. MAFLD is not only a liver disease but also a factor contributing to or related to cardiovascular diseases (CVD), which is the major etiology responsible for morbidity and mortality in patients with MAFLD. Hence, understanding the association between MAFLD and CVD, surveillance and risk stratification of MAFLD in patients with CVD, and assessment of the current status of MAFLD management are urgent requirements for both hepatologists and cardiologists. This Taiwan position statement reviews the literature and provides suggestions regarding the epidemiology, etiology, risk factors, risk stratification, nonpharmacological interventions, and potential drug treatments of MAFLD, focusing on its association with CVD.

Background/Aims: Despite the high efficacy of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), approximately 1–3% of hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients fail to achieve a sustained virological response. We conducted a nationwide study to investigate risk factors associated with DAA treatment failure. Machine-learning algorithms have been applied to discriminate subjects who may fail to respond to DAA therapy. Methods: We analyzed the Taiwan HCV Registry Program database to explore predictors of DAA failure in HCV patients. Fifty-five host and virological features were assessed using multivariate logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and artificial neural network. The primary outcome was undetectable HCV RNA at 12 weeks after the end of treatment. Results: The training (n=23,955) and validation (n=10,346) datasets had similar baseline demographics, with an overall DAA failure rate of 1.6% (n=538). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, poor DAA adherence, and higher hemoglobin A1c were significantly associated with virological failure. XGBoost outperformed the other algorithms and logistic regression models, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 1.000 in the training dataset and 0.803 in the validation dataset. The top five predictors of treatment failure were HCV RNA, body mass index, α-fetoprotein, platelets, and FIB-4 index. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the XGBoost model (cutoff value=0.5) were 99.5%, 69.7%, 99.9%, 97.4%, and 99.5%, respectively, for the entire dataset. Conclusions Machine learning algorithms effectively provide risk stratification for DAA failure and additional information on the factors associated with DAA failure.