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: This study introduced adenomas per polypectomy (APP) as a novel metric for evaluating the progression of lesion discrimination skills among colonoscopy trainees. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at the National Cancer Center, Korea between March 2020 and February 2023. Nine colorectal surgeons who completed a structured 1-year colonoscopy training program were included, and their performance was compared with that of 5 expert endoscopists. APP was defined as the number of histologically confirmed adenomas among the total number of polypectomies performed. The APPs were calculated serially to assess changes from the beginning to the end of the training. Results: A total of 8,072 colonoscopies were performed by 9 trainees and 11,687 by 5 experts. The average APP of the 9 trainees was 67.0%, which was significantly different from the 73.9% APP of the experts (P < 0.001). The APP progression of trainees exhibited 3 phases: phase 1 (<200 cases) showed increasing polyp detection and APP; phase 2 (200–500 cases) displayed a sharp rise in the number of polypectomies but a decline in APP; and phase 3 (>500 cases) demonstrated a decrease in the number of polypectomies with a moderate rise in APP. However, even in phase 3, the trainees’ APP remained significantly lower than that of the experts (69.9% vs. 73.9%, P = 0.027). Conclusion APP, a measure of visual adenoma discrimination ability, undergoes 3 stages of progression during colonoscopy training. This progression suggests that the APP may serve as an additional metric for assessing the effectiveness of colonoscopy training.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes based on the ligation level of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) in patients with rectal cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database that included all patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2013 and December 2019. The clinical outcomes included oncological outcomes, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes. The oncological outcomes included overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The functional outcomes, including defecatory and urogenital functions, were analyzed using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, International Prostate Symptom Score, and International Index of Erectile Function questionnaires. Results: In total, 545 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 244 patients underwent high ligation (HL), whereas 301 underwent low ligation (LL). The tumor size was larger in the HL group than in the LL group. The number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs) was higher in the HL group than in the LL group. There were no significant differences in complication rates and recurrence patterns between the groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year RFS and OS between the groups. Cox regression analysis revealed that the ligation level (HL vs. LL) was not a significant risk factor for oncological outcomes. Regarding functional outcomes, the LL group showed a significant recovery in defecatory function 1 year postoperatively compared with the HL group. Conclusion LL with LNs dissection around the root of the IMA might not affect the oncologic outcomes comparing to HL; however, it has minimal benefit for defecatory function.

Purpose: Whether to perform surgery or conservatively manage appendicitis in immunosuppressed patients is a concern for clinicians. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of these 2 treatment options for appendicitis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: This retrospective study included 206 patients with cancer who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis between August 2001 and December 2021. Among them, patients who received chemotherapy within 1 month were divided into surgical and conservative groups. We evaluated the outcomes, including treatment success within 1 year, 1-year recurrence, and the number of days from the diagnosis of appendicitis to chemotherapy restart, between the 2 groups. Results: Among the 206 patients with cancer who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis, 78 received chemotherapy within 1 month. The patients were divided into surgery (n = 63) and conservative (n = 15) groups. In the surgery group, the duration of antibiotic therapy (7.0 days vs. 16.0 days, P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (8.0 days vs. 27.5 days, P = 0.002) were significantly shorter than conservative groups. The duration from the diagnosis of appendicitis to the restart of chemotherapy was shorter in the surgery group (20.8 ± 15.1 days vs. 35.2 ± 28.2 days, P = 0.028). The treatment success rate within 1 year was higher in the surgery group (100% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.001). Conclusion Surgical treatment showed a significantly higher success rate than conservative treatment for appendicitis in patients less than 1 month after chemotherapy. Further prospective studies will be needed to clinically determine treatment options.

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.