Recently, usage of the term ‘heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)’ has predominated over the term ‘diastolic heart failure (DHF).’ The term ‘preserved ejection fraction’ represents only one aspect of DHF and does not provide insight into the hemodynamic mechanism of heart failure. In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), depressed ejection fraction is the independent determinant of prognosis regardless of etiology. However, in HFpEF, because the prognosis is predominantly determined by etiologies of HFpEF, results of the drug on the prognosis in the clinical trial cannot be interpreted as it is. Therefore, studies on patients with HFpEF should be restricted to patients with diastolic dysfunction and, effects of drugs should be focused on symptom improvement not survival benefit. One reason for the prevalent use of HFpEF over DHF is the complexity in assessing diastolic function. Current official recommendations for the evaluation of diastolic function are too complex to be widely applied in the patient enrollment in large clinical trials as well as not easily applicable in our daily clinical practice. Therefore, there is a clinical need for a simple and practical way of assessing diastolic function.

Recently, usage of the term ‘heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)’ has predominated over the term ‘diastolic heart failure (DHF).’ The term ‘preserved ejection fraction’ represents only one aspect of DHF and does not provide insight into the hemodynamic mechanism of heart failure. In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), depressed ejection fraction is the independent determinant of prognosis regardless of etiology. However, in HFpEF, because the prognosis is predominantly determined by etiologies of HFpEF, results of the drug on the prognosis in the clinical trial cannot be interpreted as it is. Therefore, studies on patients with HFpEF should be restricted to patients with diastolic dysfunction and, effects of drugs should be focused on symptom improvement not survival benefit. One reason for the prevalent use of HFpEF over DHF is the complexity in assessing diastolic function. Current official recommendations for the evaluation of diastolic function are too complex to be widely applied in the patient enrollment in large clinical trials as well as not easily applicable in our daily clinical practice. Therefore, there is a clinical need for a simple and practical way of assessing diastolic function.

Recently, usage of the term ‘heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)’ has predominated over the term ‘diastolic heart failure (DHF).’ The term ‘preserved ejection fraction’ represents only one aspect of DHF and does not provide insight into the hemodynamic mechanism of heart failure. In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), depressed ejection fraction is the independent determinant of prognosis regardless of etiology. However, in HFpEF, because the prognosis is predominantly determined by etiologies of HFpEF, results of the drug on the prognosis in the clinical trial cannot be interpreted as it is. Therefore, studies on patients with HFpEF should be restricted to patients with diastolic dysfunction and, effects of drugs should be focused on symptom improvement not survival benefit. One reason for the prevalent use of HFpEF over DHF is the complexity in assessing diastolic function. Current official recommendations for the evaluation of diastolic function are too complex to be widely applied in the patient enrollment in large clinical trials as well as not easily applicable in our daily clinical practice. Therefore, there is a clinical need for a simple and practical way of assessing diastolic function.

Recently, usage of the term ‘heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)’ has predominated over the term ‘diastolic heart failure (DHF).’ The term ‘preserved ejection fraction’ represents only one aspect of DHF and does not provide insight into the hemodynamic mechanism of heart failure. In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), depressed ejection fraction is the independent determinant of prognosis regardless of etiology. However, in HFpEF, because the prognosis is predominantly determined by etiologies of HFpEF, results of the drug on the prognosis in the clinical trial cannot be interpreted as it is. Therefore, studies on patients with HFpEF should be restricted to patients with diastolic dysfunction and, effects of drugs should be focused on symptom improvement not survival benefit. One reason for the prevalent use of HFpEF over DHF is the complexity in assessing diastolic function. Current official recommendations for the evaluation of diastolic function are too complex to be widely applied in the patient enrollment in large clinical trials as well as not easily applicable in our daily clinical practice. Therefore, there is a clinical need for a simple and practical way of assessing diastolic function.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Background and Objectives: Early diastolic mitral annular tissue (e’) velocity is a commonly used marker of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic implications of e’ velocity in patients with mitral regurgitation (MR). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 1,536 consecutive patients aged <65 years with moderate or severe chronic primary MR diagnosed between 2009 and 2018. The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, respectively.According to the current guidelines, the cut-off value of e’ velocity was defined as 7 cm/s. Results: A total of 404 individuals were enrolled (median age, 51.0 years; 64.1% male; 47.8% severe MR). During a median 6.0-year follow-up, there were 40 all-cause mortality and 16 cardiovascular deaths. Multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between e’ velocity and all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.770; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.634–0.935; p=0.008) and cardiovascular death (aHR, 0.690; 95% CI, 0.477–0.998;p=0.049). Abnormal e’ velocity (≤7 cm/s) independently predicted all-cause death (aHR, 2.467; 95% CI, 1.170–5.200; p=0.018) and cardiovascular death (aHR, 5.021; 95% CI, 1.189–21.211; p=0.028), regardless of symptoms, LV dimension and ejection fraction. Subgroup analysis according to sex, MR severity, mitral valve replacement/repair, and symptoms, showed no significant interactions. Including e’ velocity in the 10-year risk score improved reclassification for mortality (net reclassification improvement [NRI], 0.154; 95% CI, 0.308– 0.910; p<0.001) and cardiovascular death (NRI, 1.018; 95% CI, 0.680–1.356; p<0.001). Conclusions In patients aged <65 years with primary MR, e’ velocity served as an independent predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training. Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined. Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee’s ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees’ ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606). Conclusion In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.