Anastomotic leak is the most common and serious complication following esophagectomy. Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a promising method for treating anastomotic leak. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EVAC and to identify factors associated with longer treatment duration for esophageal anastomotic leak following esophagectomy for cancer. We retrospectively analyzed 20 esophageal cancer patients who had undergone EVAC for anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. The efficacy and success rates were evaluated and factors associated with longer treatment duration (≥ 21 days) were identified. All 20 patients were male. Of these, 10 (50.0%) received neoadjuvant treatment and 6 (30.0%) had one or more comorbidities. The median size of fistula opening was 1.75 cm. During a median of 14.5 days of EVAC treatment, a median of 5 interventions were performed. Treatment success was achieved in 19 patients (95.0%). Neoadjuvant treatment was significantly associated with longer EVAC treatment. There was a non-significant trend toward the need for longer treatment duration for a larger fistula opening size. EVAC treatment is a good non-surgical option for anastomotic leak following esophagectomy. Long duration of treatment is associated with neoadjuvant treatment and a large leakage opening.

Background: Treatment of Helicobacter pylori (HP) has been shown to reduce the risk of gastric cancer (GC) development. However, previous studies have focused on patients at high risk of GC. This study aimed to assess the effect of HP treatment on the incidence of GC in the general population. Materials and Methods: Medical records were obtained from the Common Data Model-converted sample Cohort of the National Health Insurance Service of Korea (NHIS-CDM). The target cohort included those who had been prescribed HP treatment and the comparator cohort included those who had not. The association between HP treatment and the risk of GC development was assessed using the Cox proportional hazard model. The incidences of GC according to the period after HP treatment in different age groups were analyzed using proportional trend tests. Results: After large-scale 1:4 propensity score matching, 2735 and 5328 individuals were included in the target and comparator cohorts, respectively. During the median follow-up of 6.5 years, the GC incidence was lower in the HP treatment cohort than in the comparator cohort, but this was statistically insignificant (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50–1.13; p-value = 0.19). This trend was also observed among the older age (≥65 years, HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.44–1.68; p-value = 0.69) and male cohorts (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.51–1.27; p-value = 0.38). Among 58,684 individuals who were treated for HP from the whole NHIS-CDM cohort, the incidence of GC consistently decreased over time and showed a marked decrease with increasing age (p for trend < 0.05). Conclusions: In all age groups of the general population, HP treatment could be recommended to reduce the risk of GC.