Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

South Korea’s current vaccination policies leave a surveillance gap for non-National Immunization Program (NIP) vaccines. In this study, we proposed a sentinel surveillance approach for monitoring the safety of non-NIP vaccines. Vaccination data were collected retrospectively among patients hospitalized with pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESI) by reviewing electronic medical records in five university hospitals. This approach incorporates expert assessment to determine the causal relationship. We confirmed that 16 patients had received non-NIP vaccines among 860 patients diagnosed with AESI.We concluded one case of preeclampsia was possibly related to tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccination. We propose a multi-hospital-based, retrospective assessment system for predefined AESIs as an alternative to active vaccine safety monitoring method. These efforts are expected to enhance both the accuracy and timeliness of safety monitoring in South Korea.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

South Korea’s current vaccination policies leave a surveillance gap for non-National Immunization Program (NIP) vaccines. In this study, we proposed a sentinel surveillance approach for monitoring the safety of non-NIP vaccines. Vaccination data were collected retrospectively among patients hospitalized with pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESI) by reviewing electronic medical records in five university hospitals. This approach incorporates expert assessment to determine the causal relationship. We confirmed that 16 patients had received non-NIP vaccines among 860 patients diagnosed with AESI.We concluded one case of preeclampsia was possibly related to tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccination. We propose a multi-hospital-based, retrospective assessment system for predefined AESIs as an alternative to active vaccine safety monitoring method. These efforts are expected to enhance both the accuracy and timeliness of safety monitoring in South Korea.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.