Purpose: Regenerative medicine is expected to offer an alternative to liver transplantation for treating liver diseases in the future, with one significant challenge being the establishment of an effective stem cell administration route. This study assessed the antifibrogenic effects of adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) in a liver fibrosis mouse model, focusing on 2 methods of delivery: intravenous injection and scaffold implantation. Methods: An extracellular matrix mimic scaffold was utilized for culturing peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-alpha–overexpressing ASCs (tASCs). These scaffolds, laden with tASCs, were then implanted subcutaneously in mice exhibiting liver fibrosis. In contrast, the Cell groups received biweekly intravenous injections of tASCs for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, tissue samples were harvested from the euthanized mice for subsequent analysis. Results: Real-time PCR and Western blot analyses on liver tissues, focusing on markers like alpha-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), matrix metalloproteinase-2, and transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-β1), showed that both delivery routes substantially lowered fibrotic and inflammatory markers compared to controls (P < 0.05), with no significant differences between the routes. Histological examinations, along with immunohistochemical analysis of α-SMA, collagen type I alpha, and TGF-β1, revealed that the scaffold implantation approach resulted in a greater reduction in fibrosis and lower immunoreactivity for fibrotic markers than intravenous delivery (P < 0.05). Conclusion These findings indicate that delivering tASCs via a scaffold could be more effective, or at least similarly effective, in treating liver fibrosis compared to intravenous delivery. Scaffold implantation could offer a beneficial alternative to frequent intravenous treatments, suggesting its potential utility in clinical applications for liver disease treatment.

Purpose: Regenerative medicine is expected to offer an alternative to liver transplantation for treating liver diseases in the future, with one significant challenge being the establishment of an effective stem cell administration route. This study assessed the antifibrogenic effects of adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) in a liver fibrosis mouse model, focusing on 2 methods of delivery: intravenous injection and scaffold implantation. Methods: An extracellular matrix mimic scaffold was utilized for culturing peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-alpha–overexpressing ASCs (tASCs). These scaffolds, laden with tASCs, were then implanted subcutaneously in mice exhibiting liver fibrosis. In contrast, the Cell groups received biweekly intravenous injections of tASCs for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, tissue samples were harvested from the euthanized mice for subsequent analysis. Results: Real-time PCR and Western blot analyses on liver tissues, focusing on markers like alpha-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), matrix metalloproteinase-2, and transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-β1), showed that both delivery routes substantially lowered fibrotic and inflammatory markers compared to controls (P < 0.05), with no significant differences between the routes. Histological examinations, along with immunohistochemical analysis of α-SMA, collagen type I alpha, and TGF-β1, revealed that the scaffold implantation approach resulted in a greater reduction in fibrosis and lower immunoreactivity for fibrotic markers than intravenous delivery (P < 0.05). Conclusion These findings indicate that delivering tASCs via a scaffold could be more effective, or at least similarly effective, in treating liver fibrosis compared to intravenous delivery. Scaffold implantation could offer a beneficial alternative to frequent intravenous treatments, suggesting its potential utility in clinical applications for liver disease treatment.

Purpose: Regenerative medicine is expected to offer an alternative to liver transplantation for treating liver diseases in the future, with one significant challenge being the establishment of an effective stem cell administration route. This study assessed the antifibrogenic effects of adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) in a liver fibrosis mouse model, focusing on 2 methods of delivery: intravenous injection and scaffold implantation. Methods: An extracellular matrix mimic scaffold was utilized for culturing peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-alpha–overexpressing ASCs (tASCs). These scaffolds, laden with tASCs, were then implanted subcutaneously in mice exhibiting liver fibrosis. In contrast, the Cell groups received biweekly intravenous injections of tASCs for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, tissue samples were harvested from the euthanized mice for subsequent analysis. Results: Real-time PCR and Western blot analyses on liver tissues, focusing on markers like alpha-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), matrix metalloproteinase-2, and transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-β1), showed that both delivery routes substantially lowered fibrotic and inflammatory markers compared to controls (P < 0.05), with no significant differences between the routes. Histological examinations, along with immunohistochemical analysis of α-SMA, collagen type I alpha, and TGF-β1, revealed that the scaffold implantation approach resulted in a greater reduction in fibrosis and lower immunoreactivity for fibrotic markers than intravenous delivery (P < 0.05). Conclusion These findings indicate that delivering tASCs via a scaffold could be more effective, or at least similarly effective, in treating liver fibrosis compared to intravenous delivery. Scaffold implantation could offer a beneficial alternative to frequent intravenous treatments, suggesting its potential utility in clinical applications for liver disease treatment.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

This manuscript represents the official position of the Korean Society of Echocardiography on valvular heart diseases.This position paper focuses on the diagnosis and management of valvular heart diseases with referring to the guide‑ lines recently published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. The committee sought to reflect national data on the topic of valvular heart diseases published to date through a systematic literature search based on validity and relevance. In the part II of this article, we intend to pre‑ sent recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of mitral valve disease and tricuspid valve disease.

Background: The risk of device thrombosis and device-oriented clinical outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was reported to be significantly higher than with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, optimal device implantation may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving BVS. The current study evaluated mid-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS with meticulous device optimization under intravascular imaging guidance. Methods: The SMART-REWARD and PERSPECTIVE-PCI registries in Korea prospectively enrolled 390 patients with BVS and 675 patients with DES, respectively. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years and the secondary major endpoint was patientoriented composite outcome (POCO) at 2 years. Results: Patient-level pooled analysis evaluated 1,003 patients (377 patients with BVS and 626 patients with DES). Mean scaffold diameter per lesion was 3.24 ± 0.30 mm in BVS group.Most BVSs were implanted with pre-dilatation (90.9%), intravascular imaging guidance (74.9%), and post-dilatation (73.1%) at proximal to mid segment (81.9%) in target vessel.Patients treated with BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF (2.9% vs. 3.7%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.283, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487–3.378, P = 0.615) and 2-year POCO (4.5% vs. 5.9%, adjusted HR, 1.413, 95% CI, 0.663–3.012,P = 0.370) than those with DES. The rate of 2-year definite or probable device thrombosis (0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.424) was also similar. The sensitivity analyses consistently showed comparable risk of TVF and POCO between the 2 groups. Conclusion With meticulous device optimization under imaging guidance and avoidance of implantation in small vessels, BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF and device thrombosis with DES.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of implant connection type on marginal bone loss (MBL) and to ana-lyze the factors that affect MBL. This study focuses on single implants planted in the upper and lower first molar area. Materials and Methods: A total of 87 implants from 68 patients were tracked for a period over 5 years. There were 57 external connection type (EC) implants and 30 internal connection type (IC) implants in 38 males and 30 females. The MBL and EA were measured from intraoral radiograph images taken after 5 years at most. Results: Significant difference in MBL between EC and IC type was observed in pa-tients without GBR or diabetes. Patients without GBR exhibited an MBL of -0.065 ± 0.859 mm in EC type and -0.627 ± 0.639 mm in IC type (P = 0.025). Using multiple regression analysis, a statistically significant negative correlation was observed between MBL and conditions including implant-abutment connection type (β = -0.303), diabetes (β = -0.113), emergence angle > 30° (β = -0.234), and age (β = -0.776). Conclusion Within this results, IC type implants had less MBL than EC type, and implant prosthesis with emergence angle over 30° showed greater MBL. To minimize the MBL of the implant and ensure implant stability, careful consideration should be given to the EA of implant prosthesis and its connection type.