Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.

Background/Aims: While switching strategies of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (RIs) have sometimes been used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients, the current status of in-hospital P2Y12RI switching remains unknown. Methods: Overall, 8,476 AMI patients who underwent successful revascularization from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH) were divided according to in-hospital P2Y12RI strategies, and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding during hospitalization were compared. Results: Patients with in-hospital P2Y12RI switching accounted for 16.5%, of which 867 patients were switched from clopidogrel to potent P2Y12RI (C-P) and 532 patients from potent P2Y12RI to clopidogrel (P-C). There were no differences in NACEs among the unchanged clopidogrel, the unchanged potent P2Y12RIs, and the P2Y12RI switching groups. However, compared to the unchanged clopidogrel group, the C-P group had a higher incidence of non-fatal MI, and the P-C group had a higher incidence of TIMI major bleeding. In clinical events of in-hospital P2Y12RI switching, 90.9% of non-fatal MI occurred during pre-switching clopidogrel administration, 60.7% of TIMI major bleeding was related to pre-switching P2Y12RIs, and 71.4% of TIMI major bleeding was related to potent P2Y12RIs. Only 21.6% of the P2Y12RI switching group switched to P2Y12RIs after a loading dose (LD); however, there were no differences in clinical events between patients with and without LD. Conclusions In-hospital P2Y12RI switching occurred occasionally, but had relatively similar clinical outcomes compared to unchanged P2Y12RIs in Korean AMI patients. Non-fatal MI and bleeding appeared to be mainly related to pre-switching P2Y12RIs.

Helicobacter pylori infection is one of the most common infectious diseases worldwide. Although the prevalence of H. pylori is gradually decreasing, approximately half of the world's population still becomes infected with this disease. H. pylori is responsible for substantial gastrointestinal morbidity worldwide, with a high disease burden. It is the most common cause of gastric and duodenal ulcers and gastric cancer. Since the revision of the H. pylori clinical practice guidelines in 2013 in Korea, the eradication rate of H. pylori has gradually decreased with the use of a clarithromycin-based triple therapy for 7 days. According to a nationwide randomized controlled study conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research released in 2018, the intention-to-treat eradication rate was only 63.9%, which was mostly due to increased antimicrobial resistance, especially from clarithromycin. The clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori were updated according to evidence-based medicine from a meta-analysis conducted on a target group receiving the latest level of eradication therapy. The draft recommendations developed based on the meta-analysis were finalized after an expert consensus on three recommendations regarding the indication for treatment and eight recommendations for the treatment itself. These guidelines were designed to provide clinical evidence for the treatment (including primary care treatment) of H. pylori infection to patients, nurses, medical school students, policymakers, and clinicians. These may differ from current medical insurance standards and will be revised if more evidence emerges in the future.

Background/Aims: Standard triple therapy, including a proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin, has been recommended as the first-line for Helicobacter pylori infection. However, the eradication rate of standard triple therapy has declined over the past years because of the increasing resistance to clarithromycin in Korea. We analyzed the eradication rates and the 10-year change in the eradication rates in Korea. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed were searched for studies published between January 2007 and June 2018. The pooled eradication rates and their 95% CIs were estimated using a random-effect logistic regression model. Results: Twenty-six randomized controlled studies on standard triple therapy conducted in Korea were selected. The intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol analyses showed pooled eradication rates of standard triple therapy of 71.6% (95% CI, 69.9~73.3%) and 79.6% (95% CI, 76.6~82.2%), respectively. The eradication rate decreased with time. The ITT analysis showed that the 14-day therapy (78.1% [95% CI, 75.2~80.7%]) had significantly higher eradication rates than the 7-day therapy (70.0% [95% CI, 68.5~71.4%]) (P<0.01). Conclusions These results suggest that the eradication rate of standard triple therapy, as the first-line therapy, has shown an unacceptable decrease. The eradication rate increased when the duration of therapy was increased to 14 days, but it was not satisfactory. Therefore, other treatment regimens or therapies based on susceptibility tests should be considered for the first-line therapy.

Background/Aims: The eradication rate of the first-line standard triple therapy (STT) for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection has decreased since 2000; therefore, other first-line therapies are required. This study was aimed at investigating the efficacy of bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (PBMT) for first-line H. pylori eradication compared to STT, sequential therapy (SQT), and concomitant therapy (CT). Materials and Methods: The Ovid-MEDLINE, Koreamed, EMBASE, KMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2008 to July 2018. All identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PBMT and non-PBMT for first-line H. pylori eradication therapy were included in the final analysis. Results: A total of 3,653 patients from seven RCTs were enrolled. The pooled eradication rates of PBMT by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were 82.1% (95% CI, 68.2~90.8%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 77.1~94.9%), respectively. However, no statistically significant difference was observed in eradication rates of the 10- or 14-day PBMT as compared to 14-day STT, 10-day SQT, and 10-day CT in ITT and PP analyses. PBMT was significantly higher in adverse events than in the other eradication regimens (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.11~2.44). Considerable heterogeneity in adverse events was observed among studies (χ2=88.7; P<0.001, I2=93%). Conclusions PBMT can be the first-line treatment for H. pylori eradication in Korea when other first-line options, including STT, SQT, or CT, are unavailable due to their high adverse event rates.

Background/Aims: As antibiotic resistance increases and new first-line therapies emerge, salvage therapies for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication failures are becoming more common and complicated. This study aimed to systematically review overall salvage regimens after previous failure of H. pylori eradication. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating salvage therapies after previous H. pylori eradication failure was performed. A meta-analysis was conducted when an adequate number of studies suitable for grouping was found. Results: Overall, 36 studies with 77 treatment arms were identified, and they were highly heterogeneous regarding previously failed regimens and salvage regimens under comparison. Bismuth quadruple therapy after failure of standard triple therapy showed a pooled intention-to-treat (ITT) eradication rate of 75.5% (95% CI, 71.6~79.1%), and the rates were significantly higher with 14-day therapy than 7-day therapy by 9% (95% CI, 2~15%). Levofloxacin triple therapy after failure of standard triple therapy demonstrated a pooled ITT eradication rate of 73.3% (95% CI, 68.4~77.3%). In direct comparison, the two regimens were not significantly different in eradication rates. No study evaluated salvage regimens after the failure of bismuth or non-bismuth quadruple therapy. Conclusions The current studies regarding salvage regimens are highly heterogeneous. Bismuth quadruple therapy and levofloxacin triple therapy may be a reliable option after failure of standard triple therapy, but the regional profile of antibiotic resistance should be considered. Further studies are needed for salvage regimens after failure of non-bismuth or bismuth quadruple therapy.

Helicobacter pylori infection is one of the most common infectious diseases worldwide. H. pylori is responsible for substantial gastrointestinal morbidity with a high disease burden. Since the revision of the H. pylori Clinical Practice Guidelines in 2013 in Korea, the eradication rate of H. pylori has gradually decreased with the use of a clarithromycin based triple therapy. According to a nationwide randomized controlled study by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research released in 2018, the intention-to-treat eradication rate was only 63.9%, which was mostly due to increased antimicrobial resistance to clarithromycin. The clinical practice guidelines for treatment of H. pylori were updated based on evidence-based medicine from a meta-analysis conducted on a target group receiving the latest level of eradication therapy. The draft recommendations developed based on the meta-analysis were finalized after expert consensus on three recommendations regarding the indication for treatment and eight recommendations on the treatment itself. These guidelines were designed to provide clinical evidence for the treatment of H. pylori to patients, nurses, medical school students, policymakers, and clinicians. These may differ from current medical insurance standards, and will be revised if more evidence emerges in the future.

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is one of the most common infectious diseases worldwide. Although its incidence is gradually decreasing, about half of the world's population still get infected. H. pylori infection is responsible for substantial gastrointestinal morbidity worldwide. It is the most common cause of gastric and duodenal ulcers as well as gastric cancer. Since the revision of the H. pylori Clinical Practice Guidelines in 2013, the eradication rate of H. pylori has gradually decreased with the use of classical triple therapy, wherein amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and proton pump inhibitors are administered, for 7 days. According to a nationwide randomized controlled study conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research released in 2018, the intention-to-treat eradication rate was only 63.9%, which was due to increased antimicrobial resistance induced by the use of antibiotics, especially clarithromycin. The update of clinical practice guideline for treatment of H. pylori was developed based on evidence-based medicine by conducting a meta-analysis. The draft recommendations were finalized after expert consensus on three recommendations regarding the indication for treatment and eight recommendations on the treatment itself. These guidelines are designed to provide patients, nurses, medical school students, policymakers, and clinicians with clinical evidence to guide primary care and treatment of H. pylori infection. These may differ from current medical insurance standards and will be revised further, if necessary, based on research-based evidence.

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is one of the most common infectious diseases worldwide. Although its incidence is gradually decreasing, about half of the world's population still get infected. H. pylori infection is responsible for substantial gastrointestinal morbidity worldwide. It is the most common cause of gastric and duodenal ulcers as well as gastric cancer. Since the revision of the H. pylori Clinical Practice Guidelines in 2013, the eradication rate of H. pylori has gradually decreased with the use of classical triple therapy, wherein amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and proton pump inhibitors are administered, for 7 days. According to a nationwide randomized controlled study conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research released in 2018, the intention-to-treat eradication rate was only 63.9%, which was due to increased antimicrobial resistance induced by the use of antibiotics, especially clarithromycin. The update of clinical practice guideline for treatment of H. pylori was developed based on evidence-based medicine by conducting a meta-analysis. The draft recommendations were finalized after expert consensus on three recommendations regarding the indication for treatment and eight recommendations on the treatment itself. These guidelines are designed to provide patients, nurses, medical school students, policymakers, and clinicians with clinical evidence to guide primary care and treatment of H. pylori infection. These may differ from current medical insurance standards and will be revised further, if necessary, based on research-based evidence.

Background/Aims: Standard triple therapy, including a proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin, and amoxicillin, has been recommended as the first-line for Helicobacter pylori infection. However, the eradication rate of standard triple therapy has declined over the past years because of the increasing resistance to clarithromycin in Korea. We analyzed the eradication rates and the 10-year change in the eradication rates in Korea. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed were searched for studies published between January 2007 and June 2018. The pooled eradication rates and their 95% CIs were estimated using a random-effect logistic regression model. Results: Twenty-six randomized controlled studies on standard triple therapy conducted in Korea were selected. The intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol analyses showed pooled eradication rates of standard triple therapy of 71.6% (95% CI, 69.9~73.3%) and 79.6% (95% CI, 76.6~82.2%), respectively. The eradication rate decreased with time. The ITT analysis showed that the 14-day therapy (78.1% [95% CI, 75.2~80.7%]) had significantly higher eradication rates than the 7-day therapy (70.0% [95% CI, 68.5~71.4%]) (P<0.01). Conclusions These results suggest that the eradication rate of standard triple therapy, as the first-line therapy, has shown an unacceptable decrease. The eradication rate increased when the duration of therapy was increased to 14 days, but it was not satisfactory. Therefore, other treatment regimens or therapies based on susceptibility tests should be considered for the first-line therapy.