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: 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: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a shortage of medical resources and the need for proper treatment guidelines for brain tumor patients became more pressing. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, has undertaken efforts to develop a guideline that is tailored to the domestic situation and that can be used in similar crisis situations in the future. As part II of the guideline, this consensus survey is to suggest management options in specific clinical scenarios during the crisis period. Methods: The KSNO Guideline Working Group consisted of 22 multidisciplinary experts on neuro-oncology in Korea. In order to confirm a consensus reached by the experts, opinions on 5 specific clinical scenarios about the management of brain tumor patients during the crisis period were devised and asked. To build-up the consensus process, Delphi method was employed. Results: The summary of the final consensus from each scenario are as follows. For patients with newly diagnosed astrocytoma with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant and oligodendroglioma with IDH-mutant/1p19q codeleted, observation was preferred for patients with low-risk, World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) ≥60, while adjuvant radiotherapy alone was preferred for patients with high-risk, WHO grade 2, and KPS ≥60. For newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma, the most preferred adjuvant treatment strategy after surgery was radiotherapy plus temozolomide except for patients aged ≥70 years with KPS of 60 and unmethylated MGMT promoters. In patients with symptomatic brain metastasis, the preferred treatment differed according to the number of brain metastasis and performance status. For patients with newly diagnosed atypical meningioma, adjuvant radiation was deferred in patients with older age, poor performance status, complete resection, or low mitotic count. Conclusion It is imperative that proper medical care for brain tumor patients be sustained and provided, even during the crisis period. The findings of this consensus survey will be a useful reference in determining appropriate treatment options for brain tumor patients in the specific clinical scenarios covered by the survey during the future crisis.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the need for appropriate treatment guidelines for patients with brain tumors was indispensable due to the lack and limitations of medical resources. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, has undertaken efforts to develop a guideline that is tailored to the domestic situation and that can be used in similar crisis situations in the future. Methods: The KSNO Guideline Working Group was composed of 22 multidisciplinary experts on neuro-oncology in Korea. In order to reach consensus among the experts, the Delphi method was used to build up the final recommendations. Results: All participating experts completed the series of surveys, and the results of final survey were used to draft the current consensus recommendations. Priority levels of surgery and radiotherapy during crises were proposed using appropriate time window-based criteria for management outcome. The highest priority for surgery is assigned to patients who are life-threatening or have a risk of significant impact on a patient’s prognosis unless immediate intervention is given within 24–48 hours. As for the radiotherapy, patients who are at risk of compromising their overall survival or neurological status within 4–6 weeks are assigned to the highest priority. Curative-intent chemotherapy has the highest priority, followed by neoadjuvant/adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy during a crisis period. Telemedicine should be actively considered as a management tool for brain tumor patients during the mass infection crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion It is crucial that adequate medical care for patients with brain tumors is maintained and provided, even during times of crisis. This guideline will serve as a valuable resource, assisting in the delivery of treatment to brain tumor patients in the event of any future crisis.

Background: Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) have been associated with various safety concerns including weight gain, bladder cancer, and congestive heart failure (CHF). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lobeglitazone, a novel TZD in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in real practice. Methods: In this non-interventional, multi-center, retrospective, and observational study conducted at 15 tertiary or secondary referral hospitals in Korea, a total of 2,228 patients with T2DM who received lobeglitazone 0.5 mg for more than 1 year were enrolled. Results: Overall adverse events (AEs) occurred in 381 patients (17.10%) including edema in 1.97% (n=44). Cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases were identified in 0.81% (n=18) and 0.81% (n=18), respectively. One case of CHF was reported as an AE. Edema occurred in 1.97% (n=44) of patients. Hypoglycemia occurred in 2.47% (n=55) of patients. Fracture occurred in 1.17% (n=26) of all patients. Lobeglitazone significantly decreased HbA1c level, resulting in a mean treatment difference of -1.05%± 1.35% (P<0.001), and decreased total cholesterol, triglyceride, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. However, it increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, regardless of statin administration. The patients who received lobeglitazone 0.5 mg showed an apparent reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline during the first 6 months of treatment. The HbA1c levels remained stable between months 6 and 42. Conclusion Lobeglitazone has long-term safety profile, good glycemic-lowering effect and long-term durability of glycemic control in real-world clinical settings.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the “proven GERD” with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis. Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the “proven GERD” with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis.Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the “proven GERD” with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis.Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

Esophageal achalasia is a primary motility disorder characterized by insufficient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation and loss of esophageal peristalsis. Achalasia is a chronic disease that causes progressive irreversible loss of esophageal motor function. The recent development of high-resolution manometry has facilitated the diagnosis of achalasia, and determining the achalasia subtypes based on high-resolution manometry can be important when deciding on treatment methods. Peroral endoscopic myotomy is less invasive than surgery with comparable efficacy. The present guidelines (the “2019 Seoul Consensus on Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines”) were developed based on evidence-based medicine; the Asian Neurogastroenterology and Motility Association and Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility served as the operating and development committees, respectively. The development of the guidelines began in June 2018, and a draft consensus based on the Delphi process was achieved in April 2019. The guidelines consist of 18 recommendations: 2 pertaining to the definition and epidemiology of achalasia, 6 pertaining to diagnoses, and 10 pertaining to treatments. The endoscopic treatment section is based on the latest evidence from meta-analyses. Clinicians (including gastroenterologists, upper gastrointestinal tract surgeons, general physicians, nurses, and other hospital workers) and patients could use these guidelines to make an informed decision on the management of achalasia.