Background. Foreign object ingestion and food bolus impaction are a common clinical problem. We report our clinical experiences in endoscopic management for adults, foreign body ingestion, and food bolus impaction. Method. A retrospective chart review study was conducted on adult patients with foreign body ingestion and food bolus impaction between January 2011 and November 2014. Patients with incomplete medical records were excluded. Results. A total of 198 patients (226 incidents) were included in the study (male/female: 1.54/1; age 57 ± 16 years). Among them, 168 foreign bodies were found successfully (74.3%). 75.6% of the foreign bodies were located in the esophagus. Food bolus impaction was most common (41.6%). 93.5% of foreign bodies in current study cohort were successfully extracted and 5 patients required surgical interventions. Comparisons between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients revealed that locations of foreign bodies in the pharynx and esophagus were the significant relevant factors (P < 0.001). Shorter time taken to initiate endoscopic interventions increased detection rate (289.75 ± 465.94 versus 471.06 ± 659.93 minutes, P = 0.028). Conclusion. Endoscopic management is a safe and highly effective procedure in extracting foreign body ingestion and food bolus impaction. Prompt endoscopic interventions can increase the chance of successful foreign bodies' detection.

AIMTo compare the one-week clinical effects of single doses of dexlansoprazole and esomeprazole on grades A and B erosive esophagitis.METHODSWe enrolled 175 adult patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two sequence groups to define the order in which they received single doses of dexlansoprazole (n = 88) and esomeprazole (n = 87) for an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary end-points were the complete symptom resolution (CSR) rates at days 1, 3, and 7 after drug administration.RESULTSThirteen patients were lost to follow-up, resulting in 81 patients in each group for the per-protocol analysis. The CSRs for both groups were similar at days 1, 3 and 7. In the subgroup analysis, the female patients achieved higher CSRs in the dexlansoprazole group than in the esomeprazole group at day 3 (38.3% vs 18.4%, P = 0.046). An increasing trend toward a higher CSR was observed in the dexlansoprazole group at day 7 (55.3% vs 36.8%, P = 0.09). In the esomeprazole group, female sex was a negative predictive factor for CSR on post-administration day 1 [OR = -1.249 ± 0.543; 95%CI: 0.287 (0.099-0.832), P = 0.022] and day 3 [OR = -1.254 ± 0.519; 95%CI: 0.285 (0.103-0.789), P = 0.016]. Patients with spicy food eating habits achieved lower CSRs on day 1 [37.3% vs 21.4%, OR = -0.969 ± 0.438; 95%CI: 0.380 (0.161-0.896), P = 0.027].CONCLUSIONThe overall CSR for GERD patients was similar at days 1-7 for both the dexlansoprazole and esomeprazole groups, although a higher incidence of CSR was observed on day 3 in female patients who received a single dose of dexlansoprazole.

Aims Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection have a higher incidence of gastroduodenal diseases and therefore are recommended to receive eradication therapies. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a 7-day standard triple therapy in patients with CKD (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2) and to investigate the clinical factors influencing the success of eradication. Methods A total of 758 patients with H. pylori infection receiving a 7-day standard first-line triple therapy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, were recruited. Patients were divided into two groups: CKD group (N = 130) and non-CKD group (N = 628). Results The eradication rates attained by the CKD and non-CKD groups were 85.4% and 85.7%, respectively, in the per-protocol analysis (p = 0.933). The eradication rate in CKD stage 3 was 84.5% (82/97), in stage 4 was 88.2% (15/17), and in those who received hemodialysis was 87.5% (14/16). There were no significant differences in the various stages of CKD (p = 0.982). The adverse events were similar between the two groups (3.1% versus 4.6%, p = 0.433). Compliance between the two groups was good (100.0% versus 99.8%, p = 0.649). There was no significant clinical factor influencing the H. pylori eradication rate in the non-CKD and CKD groups. Conclusions This study suggests that the H. pylori eradication rate and adverse rate in patients with CKD are comparable to those of non-CKD patients.