1.Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use With Gastric Cancer in Regions With High Prevalence of Gastric Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Seung Joo KANG ; Kwang Jae LEE
Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2025;31(2):178-185
Background/Aims:
Although the association between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and the risk of gastric cancer has been postulated in casecontrol and cohort studies, it remains still controversial. We aim to evaluate association of PPI use with gastric cancer in regions with high prevalence of gastric cancer, particularly in patients who underwent eradication of Helicobacter pylori, by systemic review and meta-analysis.
Methods:
Comprehensive literature search through the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane database was performed in October 2023. We used random effects model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between PPI use and gastric cancer.The Cochran Q-statistic and the I² test were employed for evaluating potential heterogeneity between studies.
Results:
Two case-control and 6 cohort studies were identified. PPI use was significantly associated with the development of gastric cancer (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.35-3.01). In subgroup analysis carried out according to the study design, sample size, and adjustment of confounding factors (age, sex, and H. pylori), such association was significant. A meta-analysis of 4 studies performed in patients with H. pylori eradication history showed that the use of PPIs was significantly associated with an elevated incidence of gastric cancer (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.48-2.97).
Conclusions
Long-term use of PPIs is associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer in Asian regions with high prevalence of gastric cancer, particularly in subjects who have eradication history of H. pylori. Optimization of long-term PPI use seems to be necessary in regions where gastric cancer is prevalent.
2.Incidence and Clinical Course of Post-infectious Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Patients Admitted to University Hospitals: 1-year Prospective Follow-up Study
Jae Gon LEE ; Sang Pyo LEE ; Hyun Joo JANG ; Sea Hyub KAE ; Woon Geon SHIN ; Seung In SEO ; Hyun LIM ; Ho Suk KANG ; Jae Seung SOH ; Chang Seok BANG ; Young Joo YANG ; Gwang Ho BAIK ; Jin Bae KIM ; Yu Jin KIM ; Chang Kyo OH ; Hallym Gastrointestinal Study Group
Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2025;31(1):110-118
Background/Aims:
Post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome (PI-IBS) is characterized by chronic gastrointestinal symptoms that arise following an episode of infectious enteritis. The incidence rates vary, ranging from 5% to 32% and the risk factors are not well known. We aim to investigate the incidence and risk factors of PI-IBS in enteritis patients admitted to university hospitals in Korea.
Methods:
This multi-center prospective study was conducted in patients hospitalized for infectious enteritis. Each patient underwent 1 outpatient visit and 3 telephone surveys during the first year after discharge to determine if PI-IBS occurred within the follow-up period.
Results:
In the 3-month survey, 7 out of 354 patients (2%) were diagnosed with PI-IBS, and after 1 year, only 1 patient met the criteria for IBS.No statistically significant difference was found between the PI-IBS group and the non-PI-IBS group in terms of age, sex, underlying diseases, medication history, gastrointestinal symptoms, enteritis location, causative strain, hospitalization and treatment periods, and laboratory findings. Female sex (P = 0.003), enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) infection (P = 0.044), and a longer total treatment period (P = 0.018) were independent risk factors for diarrhea lasting ≥ 3 months after enteritis.
Conclusions
The incidence of PI-IBS in Korea was relatively low, and most cases improved over time. No risk factors associated with the development of PI-IBS were found. However, persistent diarrhea after enteritis was associated with female sex, EPEC infection, and severe or long-lasting enteritis. IBS symptoms may persist after severe enteritis but usually improve with time.
3.Safety and Efficacy of Pivot-Balloon for Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation:The First-in-Man Experiences
Eun Kyoung KIM ; Min-Ku CHON ; Hyun-Sook KIM ; Yong-Hyun PARK ; Sang-Hyun LEE ; Ki Seok CHOO ; Hyung Gon JE ; Dae-Hee KIM ; Tae Oh KIM ; Yoon Seok KOH ; Jae-Hyeong PARK ; Jae-Hwan LEE ; Young Jin CHOI ; Eun Seok SHIN ; Hyuck-Jun YOON ; Seung-Whan LEE ; Joo-Yong HAHN
Korean Circulation Journal 2025;55(1):20-31
Background and Objectives:
Among various emerging catheter-based treatments for severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR), the spacer device can reduce the regurgitation orifice without manipulating the valve leaflet. However, its clinical application has been hampered by traumatic anchoring to the myocardium and the coaxial alignment of the balloon resulting in insufficient TR reduction. This study aimed to evaluate the early-stage safety, technical feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of the novel atraumatic vertical spacer in patients with isolated severe TR.
Methods:
All procedures were guided by fluoroscopy and transthoracic echocardiography.The maximum device placement time with an inflated balloon was 24 hours. Changes in the amount of TR, right ventricular function, and patient hemodynamics were measured during balloon deployment.
Results:
A total of 7 patients (median age 74), underwent successful device implantation without procedure-related complications. During balloon inflation (median 25 minutes), there were no symptoms or signs indicative of TR intolerance. TR was reduced by 1 grade or greater in all patients, with 2 patients exhibiting a reduction of 3 grades, from torrential TR to a moderate degree. Mild TR after balloon inflation was achieved in 3 patients with baseline severe TR. The TR reduction observed during initial balloon deployment was sustained during the subsequent balloon maintenance period.
Conclusions
The Pivot-balloon procedure was safe, technically feasible, and effective in reducing TR in patients with severe TR. No periprocedural complications or adverse cardiovascular events were reported during device placement with TR reduction observed in all patients. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm safety and treatment effect.
4.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
5.Palliative Care and Hospice for Heart Failure Patients: Position Statement From the Korean Society of Heart Failure
Seung-Mok LEE ; Hae-Young LEE ; Shin Hye YOO ; Hyun-Jai CHO ; Jong-Chan YOUN ; Seong-Mi PARK ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Min-Seok KIM ; Chi Young SHIM ; Jin Joo PARK ; Kye Hun KIM ; Eung Ju KIM ; Jeong Hoon YANG ; Jae Yeong CHO ; Sang-Ho JO ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Ju-Hee LEE ; In-Cheol KIM ; Gi Beom KIM ; Jung Hyun CHOI ; Sung-Hee SHIN ; Wook-Jin CHUNG ; Seok-Min KANG ; Myeong Chan CHO ; Dae-Gyun PARK ; Byung-Su YOO
International Journal of Heart Failure 2025;7(1):32-46
Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF patients.
6.Comparing 1-L and 2-L Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Chang Kyo OH ; Sang Pyo LEE ; Jae Gon LEE ; Young Joo YANG ; Seung In SEO ; Chang Seok BANG ; Yu Jin KIM ; Woon Geon SHIN ; Jin Bae KIM ; Hyun Joo JANG ; Sea Hyub KAE ; Gwang Ho BAIK ; Hallym Gastrointestinal Study Group
Gut and Liver 2025;19(1):87-94
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.
7.Comparing 1-L and 2-L Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Chang Kyo OH ; Sang Pyo LEE ; Jae Gon LEE ; Young Joo YANG ; Seung In SEO ; Chang Seok BANG ; Yu Jin KIM ; Woon Geon SHIN ; Jin Bae KIM ; Hyun Joo JANG ; Sea Hyub KAE ; Gwang Ho BAIK ; Hallym Gastrointestinal Study Group
Gut and Liver 2025;19(1):87-94
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.
8.Comparing 1-L and 2-L Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Chang Kyo OH ; Sang Pyo LEE ; Jae Gon LEE ; Young Joo YANG ; Seung In SEO ; Chang Seok BANG ; Yu Jin KIM ; Woon Geon SHIN ; Jin Bae KIM ; Hyun Joo JANG ; Sea Hyub KAE ; Gwang Ho BAIK ; Hallym Gastrointestinal Study Group
Gut and Liver 2025;19(1):87-94
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.
9.Safety and Efficacy of Pivot-Balloon for Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation:The First-in-Man Experiences
Eun Kyoung KIM ; Min-Ku CHON ; Hyun-Sook KIM ; Yong-Hyun PARK ; Sang-Hyun LEE ; Ki Seok CHOO ; Hyung Gon JE ; Dae-Hee KIM ; Tae Oh KIM ; Yoon Seok KOH ; Jae-Hyeong PARK ; Jae-Hwan LEE ; Young Jin CHOI ; Eun Seok SHIN ; Hyuck-Jun YOON ; Seung-Whan LEE ; Joo-Yong HAHN
Korean Circulation Journal 2025;55(1):20-31
Background and Objectives:
Among various emerging catheter-based treatments for severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR), the spacer device can reduce the regurgitation orifice without manipulating the valve leaflet. However, its clinical application has been hampered by traumatic anchoring to the myocardium and the coaxial alignment of the balloon resulting in insufficient TR reduction. This study aimed to evaluate the early-stage safety, technical feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of the novel atraumatic vertical spacer in patients with isolated severe TR.
Methods:
All procedures were guided by fluoroscopy and transthoracic echocardiography.The maximum device placement time with an inflated balloon was 24 hours. Changes in the amount of TR, right ventricular function, and patient hemodynamics were measured during balloon deployment.
Results:
A total of 7 patients (median age 74), underwent successful device implantation without procedure-related complications. During balloon inflation (median 25 minutes), there were no symptoms or signs indicative of TR intolerance. TR was reduced by 1 grade or greater in all patients, with 2 patients exhibiting a reduction of 3 grades, from torrential TR to a moderate degree. Mild TR after balloon inflation was achieved in 3 patients with baseline severe TR. The TR reduction observed during initial balloon deployment was sustained during the subsequent balloon maintenance period.
Conclusions
The Pivot-balloon procedure was safe, technically feasible, and effective in reducing TR in patients with severe TR. No periprocedural complications or adverse cardiovascular events were reported during device placement with TR reduction observed in all patients. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm safety and treatment effect.
10.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail