Helicobacter pylori causes gastric cancer and peptic ulcers, and eradication therapy can reduce the incidence of cancer in high-risk groups. In Korea, discrepancies between the reimbursement criteria and clinical guidelines create clinical challenges. This study investigated the perceptions and practices of experts regarding H. pylori testing during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and any subsequent eradication therapy. An anonymous 8-question survey was conducted among 51 experts attending the 2024 Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research Summer Workshop. Only 2% of the experts tested all patients. Testing was performed in 54% of patients with a family history of gastric cancer, 32% of those with atrophic gastritis, 42% of those with dyspeptic symptoms, and 62% of those with iron-deficiency anemia. Among patients with suspected infections (based on endoscopic findings) and eligible for selective reimbursement, 82% underwent H. pylori testing. Age did not influence testing decisions for 60% of the experts, and 57% considered factors other than age when deciding on eradication therapy. The practices of the experts varied depending on the patient’s clinical condition and economic burden. Aligning clinical guidelines with the reimbursement criteria is necessary to reduce confusion and ensure appropriate patient care.

Background/Aims: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) frequently occurs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly when influenced by factors such as abdominal infections, IBD flare-ups, or surgical procedures. The implications of PVT range from immediate issues such as intestinal ischemia to long-term concerns including portal hypertension and its complications. However, there is a notable gap in comprehensive studies on PVT in IBD, especially with the increasing incidence of IBD in Asia. This research aimed to evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of PVT in patients with IBD at a leading hospital in South Korea. Methods: This retrospective analysis reviewed adult patients diagnosed with both IBD and PVT from 1989 to 2021 at a renowned South Korean medical center. The study focused on patient characteristics, specifics of PVT, administered treatments, and outcomes, all confirmed through enhanced CT scans. Results: A total of 78 patients met the study’s criteria. Notably, only 20.5% (16/78) were treated with oral anticoagulants; however, a vast majority (96.2%; 75/78) achieved complete radiographic resolution (CRR). When comparing patients receiving anticoagulants to those who did not, a significant preference for anticoagulant use was observed in cases where the main portal vein was affected, as opposed to just the left or right veins (p = 0.006). However, multivariable analysis indicated that neither anticoagulant use nor previous surgeries significantly impacted CRR. Conclusions Patients with IBD and PVT generally had favorable outcomes, regardless of anticoagulant use.

Helicobacter pylori causes gastric cancer and peptic ulcers, and eradication therapy can reduce the incidence of cancer in high-risk groups. In Korea, discrepancies between the reimbursement criteria and clinical guidelines create clinical challenges. This study investigated the perceptions and practices of experts regarding H. pylori testing during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and any subsequent eradication therapy. An anonymous 8-question survey was conducted among 51 experts attending the 2024 Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research Summer Workshop. Only 2% of the experts tested all patients. Testing was performed in 54% of patients with a family history of gastric cancer, 32% of those with atrophic gastritis, 42% of those with dyspeptic symptoms, and 62% of those with iron-deficiency anemia. Among patients with suspected infections (based on endoscopic findings) and eligible for selective reimbursement, 82% underwent H. pylori testing. Age did not influence testing decisions for 60% of the experts, and 57% considered factors other than age when deciding on eradication therapy. The practices of the experts varied depending on the patient’s clinical condition and economic burden. Aligning clinical guidelines with the reimbursement criteria is necessary to reduce confusion and ensure appropriate patient care.

Background/Aims: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) frequently occurs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly when influenced by factors such as abdominal infections, IBD flare-ups, or surgical procedures. The implications of PVT range from immediate issues such as intestinal ischemia to long-term concerns including portal hypertension and its complications. However, there is a notable gap in comprehensive studies on PVT in IBD, especially with the increasing incidence of IBD in Asia. This research aimed to evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of PVT in patients with IBD at a leading hospital in South Korea. Methods: This retrospective analysis reviewed adult patients diagnosed with both IBD and PVT from 1989 to 2021 at a renowned South Korean medical center. The study focused on patient characteristics, specifics of PVT, administered treatments, and outcomes, all confirmed through enhanced CT scans. Results: A total of 78 patients met the study’s criteria. Notably, only 20.5% (16/78) were treated with oral anticoagulants; however, a vast majority (96.2%; 75/78) achieved complete radiographic resolution (CRR). When comparing patients receiving anticoagulants to those who did not, a significant preference for anticoagulant use was observed in cases where the main portal vein was affected, as opposed to just the left or right veins (p = 0.006). However, multivariable analysis indicated that neither anticoagulant use nor previous surgeries significantly impacted CRR. Conclusions Patients with IBD and PVT generally had favorable outcomes, regardless of anticoagulant use.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an intervention combining warm therapy (via a thermoelectric-element tourniquet) and a distraction-based approach (via an augmented reality-based app known as TWINKLE) on pain, stress, and satisfaction during intravenous catheterization in adults. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Korea with 93 healthy adults who were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the experimental group (TWINKLE app with warm therapy), the comparison group (warm therapy only), and the control group (no treatment). Participants’ pain, stress, and satisfaction, as well as practitioner satisfaction, were measured after the intervention. Results: Pain scores differed significantly among the three groups (F = 5.68, p = .005), with the experimental group showing significantly lower scores than the control group (p = .003). Stress levels were also significantly lower in the experimental group than in the other groups (F = 9.42, p < .001). Participant satisfaction was highest in the experimental group (F = 17.65, p < .001), while nurse satisfaction was significantly higher in the comparison group than in the experimental and control groups (F = 67.91, p < .001), suggesting that the additional distraction intervention may have increased nurses’ workload. Conclusion Combining digital distraction with warm therapy using a thermoelectric-element tourniquet effectively reduces pain and stress while improving patient satisfaction during intravenous catheterization. Further research is needed to optimize this approach, with a particular focus on targeting digital distraction interventions to patients with higher levels of procedural anxiety and finding ways to minimize practitioner workload.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an intervention combining warm therapy (via a thermoelectric-element tourniquet) and a distraction-based approach (via an augmented reality-based app known as TWINKLE) on pain, stress, and satisfaction during intravenous catheterization in adults. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Korea with 93 healthy adults who were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the experimental group (TWINKLE app with warm therapy), the comparison group (warm therapy only), and the control group (no treatment). Participants’ pain, stress, and satisfaction, as well as practitioner satisfaction, were measured after the intervention. Results: Pain scores differed significantly among the three groups (F = 5.68, p = .005), with the experimental group showing significantly lower scores than the control group (p = .003). Stress levels were also significantly lower in the experimental group than in the other groups (F = 9.42, p < .001). Participant satisfaction was highest in the experimental group (F = 17.65, p < .001), while nurse satisfaction was significantly higher in the comparison group than in the experimental and control groups (F = 67.91, p < .001), suggesting that the additional distraction intervention may have increased nurses’ workload. Conclusion Combining digital distraction with warm therapy using a thermoelectric-element tourniquet effectively reduces pain and stress while improving patient satisfaction during intravenous catheterization. Further research is needed to optimize this approach, with a particular focus on targeting digital distraction interventions to patients with higher levels of procedural anxiety and finding ways to minimize practitioner workload.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background/Aims: Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has become the standard for initial evaluation in the diagnosis of small bowel lesions. Although optimal visualization of the mucosa is important, patients experience difficulty in consuming a large volume of bowel preparation agents. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of 1-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (AA) and 2-L PEG with AA. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study, patients who received SBCE were randomly assigned to consume 1-L PEG with AA or 2-L PEG with AA for small bowel preparation. The primary outcome was adequate small bowel visibility quality (SBVQ). The secondary outcomes included diagnostic yield, cecal complete rate, and adverse events. Results: One hundred and forty patients were enrolled in this study, 70 patients per group. In the per-protocol analysis, there were no significant differences in the adequate SBVQ rate (94.0% vs 94.3%; risk difference, –0.3; 95% confidence interval, –8.1 to 7.6; p=1.000), diagnostic yield rate (49.3% vs 48.6%, p=0.936), or cecal complete rate (88.1% vs 92.9%, p=0.338) between the 1-L PEG with AA group and 2-L PEG with AA group. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups (12.9% vs 11.9%, p=0.871). Conclusions One liter-PEG with AA is not inferior to 2-L PEG with AA in terms of adequate SBVQ for SBCE. One liter-PEG with AA can be recommended as the standard method for bowel cleansing for SBCE.

Background/Aims: Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has become the standard for initial evaluation in the diagnosis of small bowel lesions. Although optimal visualization of the mucosa is important, patients experience difficulty in consuming a large volume of bowel preparation agents. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of 1-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (AA) and 2-L PEG with AA. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, non-inferiority study, patients who received SBCE were randomly assigned to consume 1-L PEG with AA or 2-L PEG with AA for small bowel preparation. The primary outcome was adequate small bowel visibility quality (SBVQ). The secondary outcomes included diagnostic yield, cecal complete rate, and adverse events. Results: One hundred and forty patients were enrolled in this study, 70 patients per group. In the per-protocol analysis, there were no significant differences in the adequate SBVQ rate (94.0% vs 94.3%; risk difference, –0.3; 95% confidence interval, –8.1 to 7.6; p=1.000), diagnostic yield rate (49.3% vs 48.6%, p=0.936), or cecal complete rate (88.1% vs 92.9%, p=0.338) between the 1-L PEG with AA group and 2-L PEG with AA group. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups (12.9% vs 11.9%, p=0.871). Conclusions One liter-PEG with AA is not inferior to 2-L PEG with AA in terms of adequate SBVQ for SBCE. One liter-PEG with AA can be recommended as the standard method for bowel cleansing for SBCE.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.