4.4 Article

Helicobacter pylori-associated peptic ulcer disease: A retrospective analysis of post-treatment testing practices

Journal

HELICOBACTER
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hel.12540

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & Aims Guidelines recommend that patients with Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori)-associated peptic ulcer disease (PUD) receive H. pylori eradication therapy followed by post-treatment testing to prove eradication; however, post-treatment testing rates are suboptimal and barriers to testing are poorly understood. Our aim was to identify factors that predicted receipt of post-treatment testing. Methods Results We performed a retrospective cohort study of 152 patients with H. pylori-associated PUD diagnosed between 2007 and 2015 at a large tertiary medical center in the United States, who received standard eradication therapy and ambulatory follow-up within one year. The primary outcome of interest was receipt of post-treatment testing. Logistic regression models compared post-treatment testing rates in those diagnosed while outpatient vs inpatient, patients with vs without repeat endoscopy, and patients with vs without gastroenterology (GI) clinic follow-up. Propensity scores controlled for age, sex, race, ulcer location, and symptom persistence. Among 152 patients, 67 (44%) patients received post-treatment testing. There were significant differences in post-treatment testing rates in those diagnosed as outpatients vs inpatients (57% vs 33%; OR 3.87, P = 0.001) and in patients with vs without GI follow-up (62% vs 11%; OR 9.85, P < 0.0001). Conclusions The rate of testing for eradication after treatment in patients with H. pylori- associated PUD was low. However, this was significantly improved in patients who have GI follow-up and whose diagnosis was made in the outpatient setting. Our study demonstrates a clear opportunity for quality improvement initiatives.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available