No abstract available.
Tuberculosis, Meningeal*

No abstract available.
Humans ; Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome* ; Survivors*

Detailed information on additional drug resistance patterns of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is essential to build an effective treatment regimen; however, such data are scarce in Korea. We retrospectively analyzed the results of phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) of culture confirmed-TB patients from January 2010 to December 2014 in 7 university hospitals in Korea. MDR-TB was identified among 6.8% (n = 378) of 5,599 isolates. A total of 57.1% (n = 216) of the MDR-TB patients had never been treated for TB. Strains from MDR-TB patients showed additional resistance to pyrazinamide (PZA) (35.7%), any second-line injectable drug (19.3%), and any fluoroquinolone (26.2%). Extensively drug resistant TB comprised 12.4% (n = 47) of the MDR-TB patients. Of 378 MDR-TB patients, 50.3% (n = 190) were eligible for the shorter MDR-TB regimen, and 50.0% (n = 189) were fully susceptible to the 5 drugs comprising the standard conventional regimen (PZA, kanamycin, ofloxoacin, prothionamide, and cycloserine). In conclusion, the proportion of new patients and the levels of additional drug resistance were high in MDR-TB patients. Considering the high levels of drug resistance, the shorter MDR-TB treatment regimen may not be feasible; instead, an individually tailored regimen based on the results of molecular and phenotypic DST may be more appropriate in MDR-TB patients in Korea.

No abstract available.
Cardiac Catheterization* ; Cardiac Catheters* ; Child* ; Cineangiography* ; Heart Diseases* ; Heart* ; Humans ; Statistics as Topic*

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We evaluated the characteristics of the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) and opinions regarding the National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program (NEQIP). METHODS: We surveyed physicians performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy screenings as part of the NCSP via e-mail between July and August in 2015. The 32-item survey instrument included endoscopic capacity, sedation, and reprocessing of endoscopes as well as opinions regarding the NEQIP. RESULTS: A total of 507 respondents were analyzed after the exclusion of 40 incomplete answers. Under the current capacity of the NCSP, the typical waiting time for screening endoscopy was less than 4 weeks in more than 90% of endoscopy units. Performance of endoscopy reprocessing was suboptimal, with 28% of respondents using unapproved disinfectants or not knowing the main ingredient of their disinfectants and 15% to 17% of respondents not following reprocessing protocols. Agreement with the NEQIP was optimal, because only 5.7% of respondents did not agree with NEQIP; however, familiarity with the NEQIP was suboptimal, because only 37.3% of respondents were familiar with the NEQIP criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The NEQ-IP remains suboptimal in Korea. Given the suboptimal performance of endoscopy reprocessing and low familiarity with the NEQIP, improved quality in endoscopy reprocessing and better understanding of the NEQIP should be emphasized in Korea.
Colonoscopy ; Colorectal Neoplasms ; Disinfectants ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Electronic Mail ; Endoscopes ; Endoscopy* ; Endoscopy, Digestive System ; Korea* ; Mass Screening ; Quality Improvement* ; Recognition (Psychology) ; Stomach Neoplasms ; Surveys and Questionnaires

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In Korea, the nationwide gastric cancer screening program recommends biennial screening for individuals aged 40 years or older by way of either an upper gastrointestinal series or endoscopy. The national endoscopic quality assessment (QA) program began recommending endoscopy in medical institutions in 2009. We aimed to assess the effect, burden, and cost of the QA program from the viewpoint of medical institutions. METHODS: We surveyed the staff of institutional endoscopic units via e-mail. RESULTS: Staff members from 67 institutions replied. Most doctors were endoscopic specialists. They responded as to whether the QA program raised awareness for endoscopic quality (93%) or improved endoscopic practice (40%). The percentages of responders who reported improvements in the diagnosis of gastric cancer, the qualifications of endoscopists, the quality of facilities and equipment, endoscopic procedure, and endoscopic reprocessing were 69%, 60%, 66%, 82%, and 75%, respectively. Regarding reprocessing, many staff members reported that they had bought new automated endoscopic preprocessors (3%), used more disinfectants (34%), washed endoscopes longer (28%), reduced the number of endoscopies performed to adhere to reprocessing guidelines (9%), and created their own quality education programs (59%). Many responders said they felt that QA was associated with some degree of burden (48%), especially financial burden caused by purchasing new equipment. Reasonable quality standards (45%) and incentives (38%) were considered important to the success of the QA program. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic quality has improved after 5 years of the mandatory endoscopic QA program.
Diagnosis ; Disinfectants ; Education ; Electronic Mail ; Endoscopes ; Endoscopy ; Korea* ; Mass Screening ; Motivation ; Specialization ; Stomach Neoplasms