Background and Objectives: Ultimaster™, a third-generation sirolimus-eluting stent using biodegradable polymer, has been introduced to overcome long term adverse vascular events, such as restenosis or stent thrombosis. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes of Ultimaster™ stents in Korean patients with coronary artery disease. Methods: This study is a multicenter, prospective, observational registry across 12 hospitals. To reflect real-world clinical evidence, non-selective subtypes of patients and lesions were included in this study. The study end point was target lesion failure (TLF) (the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization [TLR]) at 12-month clinical follow up. Results: A total of 576 patients were enrolled between November 2016 and May 2021. Most of the patients were male (76.5%), with a mean age of 66.0±11.2 years. Among the included patients, 40.1% had diabetes mellitus (DM) and 67.9% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS).At 12 months, the incidence of TLF was 4.1%. The incidence of cardiac death was 1.5%, MI was 1.0%, TLR was 2.7%, and stent thrombosis was 0.6%. In subgroup analysis based on the presence of ACS, DM, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or bifurcation, there were no major differences in the incidence of the primary endpoint. Conclusions The present registry shows that Ultimaster™ stent is safe and effective for routine real-world clinical practice in non-selective Korean patients, having a low rate of adverse events at least up to 12 months.

Purpose: Outcome analysis of urachal cancer (UraC) is limited due to the scarcity of cases and different staging methods compared to urothelial bladder cancer (UroBC). We attempted to assess survival outcomes of UraC and compare to UroBC after stage-matched analyses. Materials and Methods: Total 203 UraC patients from a multicenter database and 373 UroBC patients in single institution from 2000 to 2018 were enrolled (median follow-up, 32 months). Sheldon stage conversion to corresponding TNM staging for UraC was conducted for head-to-head comparison to UroBC. Perioperative clinical variables and pathological results were recorded. Stage-matched analyses for survival by stage were conducted. Results: UraC patients were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001), with 163 patients (80.3%) receiving partial cystectomy and 23 patients (11.3%) radical cystectomy. UraC was more likely to harbor ≥ pT3a tumors (78.8% vs. 41.8%). While 5-year recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival were comparable between two groups (63.4%, 67%, and 62.1% in UraC and 61.5%, 75.9%, and 67.8% in UroBC, respectively), generally favorable prognosis for UraC in lower stages (pT1-2) but unfavorable outcomes in higher stages (pT4) compared to UroBC was observed, although only 5-year CSS in ≥ pT4 showed statistical significance (p=0.028). Body mass index (hazard ratio [HR], 0.929), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.921), pathologic T category (HR, 3.846), and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.993) were predictors of CSS for all patients. Conclusion Despite differing histology, UraC has comparable prognosis to UroBC with relatively favorable outcome in low stages but worse prognosis in higher stages. The presented system may be useful for future grading and risk stratification of UraC.

Objective: As the history of emergency medicine grows longer, emergency medicine specialists are observed to comprise various age groups. There have been no prior studies on the generation shift analysis of emergency medicine specialists. Our study is designed to identify the characteristics of each generation and predict the generation shift in emergency medicine physicians. Methods: The analysis was based on the results of the 2020 survey of emergency medicine specialists. The study was conducted on 1,307 respondents and finally, the responses of 967 people were analyzed after excluding 199 who were not in charge of emergency room treatments and 141 who gave incomplete responses. The respondents were divided into four groups based on the following generations: first generation (1996-1999), second generation (2000-2008), third generation (2009-2014), and fourth generation (2015-2020), classified by the year in which they acquired their emergency medicine board license. The intergenerational difference analysis was done using the Kruskall-Wallis test. Results: The first generation was characterized by a high proportion of university hospital professors, large non-clinical activity hours, a few night shifts, higher social contributions, low satisfaction with the training and education environment, and a high retirement age compared to the later generations. In the second generation, the characteristics of the first, third, and fourth generations were generally mixed. The third and fourth generations showed similar characteristics overall, though there were differences in some categories. Conclusion There were significant differences by generation in the working environments, motivation for application, and retirement age. This is the first study that quantifies generational differences. Considering these trends, a discussion about the work environment needs to be initiated.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues.This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice

Background: Data regarding the association between preexisting cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and the outcomes of patients requiring hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of preexisting CVRFs or CVDs on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in a Korean healthcare system. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to 10 hospitals in Daegu Metropolitan City, Korea, were examined. All sequentially hospitalized patients between February 15, 2020, and April 24, 2020, were enrolled in this study. All patients were confirmed to have COVID-19 based on the positive results on the polymerase chain reaction testing of nasopharyngeal samples. Clinical outcomes during hospitalization, such as requiring intensive care and invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and death, were evaluated. Moreover, data on baseline comorbidities such as a history of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, current smoking, heart failure, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic cardiac diseases were obtained. Results: Of all the patients enrolled, 954 (42.0%) had preexisting CVRFs or CVDs. Among the CVRFs, the most common were hypertension (28.8%) and diabetes mellitus (17.0%). The prevalence rates of preexisting CVRFs or CVDs increased with age (P < 0.001). The number of patients requiring intensive care (P < 0.001) and invasive MV (P < 0.001) increased with age.The in-hospital death rate increased with age (P < 0.001). Patients requiring intensive care (5.3% vs. 1.6%; P < 0.001) and invasive MV (4.3% vs. 1.7%; P < 0.001) were significantly greater in patients with preexisting CVRFs or CVDs. In-hospital mortality (12.9% vs. 3.1%; P < 0.001) was significantly higher in patients with preexisting CVRFs or CVDs. Among the CVRFs, diabetes mellitus and hypertension were associated with increased requirement of intensive care and invasive MV and in-hospital death. Among the known CVDs, coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure were associated with invasive MV and in-hospital death. In multivariate analysis, preexisting CVRFs or CVDs (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–3.01; P = 0.027) were independent predictors of in-hospital death adjusting for confounding variables. Among individual preexisting CVRF or CVD components, diabetes mellitus (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.51–3.90; P < 0.001) and congestive heart failure (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.06–5.87; P = 0.049) were independent predictors of in-hospital death. Conclusion Based on the findings of this study, the patients with confirmed COVID-19 with preexisting CVRFs or CVDs had worse clinical outcomes. Caution is required in dealing with these patients at triage.after

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.