Background/Aims: Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) measuring via pH-impedance may be valuable in diagnosing patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, its wide adoption is hindered by cost and invasiveness. This study investigates whether baseline impedance measured during high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM-BI) can predict pathological MNBI. Methods: A cross-sectional study in Taiwan included 74 subjects suspected of LPR, who underwent HRIM (MMS) and pH-impedance testing (Diversatek), after stopping proton pump inhibitors for more than 7 days. Subjects with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus were excluded. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: those with concomitant typical reflux symptoms (CTRS, n = 28) and those with isolated LPR symptoms (ILPRS, n = 46). HRIM-BI measurements focused on both distal and proximal esophagi. Pathological MNBI was identified as values below 2065 Ω, measured 3 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter. Results: In all subjects, distal HRIM-BI values correlated weakly with distal MNBI(r = 0.34-0.39, P < 0.005). However, in patients with ILPRS, distal HRIM-BI corelated moderately with distal MNBI(r = 0.43-0.48, P < 0.005). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78 (P = 0.001) with a sensitivity of 0.83 and a specificity of 0.68. No correlation exists between distal HRIM-BI and distal MNBI in patients with CTRS, and between proximal HRIM-BI and proximal MNBI in both groups. Conclusions Distal HRIM-BI from HRIM may potentially predict pathological MNBI in patients with ILPRS, but not in those with CTRS. Future outcome studies linked to the metric are warranted.

Background/Aims: Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) measuring via pH-impedance may be valuable in diagnosing patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, its wide adoption is hindered by cost and invasiveness. This study investigates whether baseline impedance measured during high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM-BI) can predict pathological MNBI. Methods: A cross-sectional study in Taiwan included 74 subjects suspected of LPR, who underwent HRIM (MMS) and pH-impedance testing (Diversatek), after stopping proton pump inhibitors for more than 7 days. Subjects with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus were excluded. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: those with concomitant typical reflux symptoms (CTRS, n = 28) and those with isolated LPR symptoms (ILPRS, n = 46). HRIM-BI measurements focused on both distal and proximal esophagi. Pathological MNBI was identified as values below 2065 Ω, measured 3 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter. Results: In all subjects, distal HRIM-BI values correlated weakly with distal MNBI(r = 0.34-0.39, P < 0.005). However, in patients with ILPRS, distal HRIM-BI corelated moderately with distal MNBI(r = 0.43-0.48, P < 0.005). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78 (P = 0.001) with a sensitivity of 0.83 and a specificity of 0.68. No correlation exists between distal HRIM-BI and distal MNBI in patients with CTRS, and between proximal HRIM-BI and proximal MNBI in both groups. Conclusions Distal HRIM-BI from HRIM may potentially predict pathological MNBI in patients with ILPRS, but not in those with CTRS. Future outcome studies linked to the metric are warranted.

Background/Aims: Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) measuring via pH-impedance may be valuable in diagnosing patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, its wide adoption is hindered by cost and invasiveness. This study investigates whether baseline impedance measured during high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM-BI) can predict pathological MNBI. Methods: A cross-sectional study in Taiwan included 74 subjects suspected of LPR, who underwent HRIM (MMS) and pH-impedance testing (Diversatek), after stopping proton pump inhibitors for more than 7 days. Subjects with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus were excluded. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: those with concomitant typical reflux symptoms (CTRS, n = 28) and those with isolated LPR symptoms (ILPRS, n = 46). HRIM-BI measurements focused on both distal and proximal esophagi. Pathological MNBI was identified as values below 2065 Ω, measured 3 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter. Results: In all subjects, distal HRIM-BI values correlated weakly with distal MNBI(r = 0.34-0.39, P < 0.005). However, in patients with ILPRS, distal HRIM-BI corelated moderately with distal MNBI(r = 0.43-0.48, P < 0.005). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78 (P = 0.001) with a sensitivity of 0.83 and a specificity of 0.68. No correlation exists between distal HRIM-BI and distal MNBI in patients with CTRS, and between proximal HRIM-BI and proximal MNBI in both groups. Conclusions Distal HRIM-BI from HRIM may potentially predict pathological MNBI in patients with ILPRS, but not in those with CTRS. Future outcome studies linked to the metric are warranted.

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.

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.

Background/Aims: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients who failed antiviral therapy are at increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study assessed the potential role of metformin and statins, medications for diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperlipidemia (HLP), in reducing HCC risk among these patients. Methods: We included CHC patients from the T-COACH study who failed antiviral therapy. We tracked the onset of HCC 1.5 years post-therapy by linking to Taiwan’s cancer registry data from 2003 to 2019. We accounted for death and liver transplantation as competing risks and employed Gray’s cumulative incidence and Cox subdistribution hazards models to analyze HCC development. Results: Out of 2,779 patients, 480 (17.3%) developed HCC post-therapy. DM patients not using metformin had a 51% increased risk of HCC compared to non-DM patients, while HLP patients on statins had a 50% reduced risk compared to those without HLP. The 5-year HCC incidence was significantly higher for metformin non-users (16.5%) versus non-DM patients (11.3%; adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [aSHR]=1.51; P=0.007) and metformin users (3.1%; aSHR=1.59; P=0.022). Statin use in HLP patients correlated with a lower HCC risk (3.8%) compared to non-HLP patients (12.5%; aSHR=0.50; P<0.001). Notably, the increased HCC risk associated with non-use of metformin was primarily seen in non-cirrhotic patients, whereas statins decreased HCC risk in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients. Conclusions Metformin and statins may have a chemopreventive effect against HCC in CHC patients who failed antiviral therapy. These results support the need for personalized preventive strategies in managing HCC risk.