Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Background: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of hematolymphoid neoplasms (FCIHLN) is essential for diagnosis, classification, and minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring. FCI-HLN is typically performed using in-house protocols, raising the need for standardization. Therefore, we surveyed the current status of FCI-HLN in Korea to obtain fundamental data for quality improvement and standardization. Methods: Eight university hospitals actively conducting FCI-HLN participated in our survey.We analyzed responses to a questionnaire that included inquiries regarding test items, reagent antibodies (RAs), fluorophores, sample amounts (SAs), reagent antibody amounts (RAAs), acquisition cell number (ACN), isotype control (IC) usage, positiveegative criteria, and reporting. Results: Most hospitals used acute HLN, chronic HLN, plasma cell neoplasm (PCN), and MRD panels. The numbers of RAs were heterogeneous, with a maximum of 32, 26, 12, 14, and 10 antibodies used for acute HLN, chronic HLN, PCN, ALL-MRD, and multiple myeloma-MRD, respectively. The number of fluorophores ranged from 4 to 10. RAs, SAs, RAAs, and ACN were diverse. Most hospitals used a positive criterion of 20%, whereas one used 10% for acute and chronic HLN panels. Five hospitals used ICs for the negative criterion. Positiveegative assignments, percentages, and general opinions were commonly reported. In MRD reporting, the limit of detection and lower limit of quantification were included. Conclusions This is the first comprehensive study on the current status of FCI-HLN in Korea, confirming the high heterogeneity and complexity of FCI-HLN practices. Standardization of FCI-HLN is urgently needed. The findings provide a reference for establishing standard FCI-HLN guidelines.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved empagliflozin for reducing cardiovascular mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, limited data are available on the generalizability of empagliflozin to clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated real-world eligibility and potential cost-effectiveness based on a nationwide prospective HF registry. Methods: A total of 3,108 HFrEF and 2,070 HFpEF patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry were analyzed. Eligibility was estimated by inclusion and exclusion criteria of EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) and EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trials and by FDA & EMA label criteria. The cost-utility analysis was done using a Markov model to project the lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: Among the KorAHF patients, 91.4% met FDA & EMA label criteria, while 44.7% met the clinical trial criteria. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin was calculated at US$6,764 per QALY in the overall population, which is far below a threshold of US$18,182 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness benefit was more evident in patients with HFrEF (US$5,012 per QALY) than HFpEF (US$8,971 per QALY). Conclusion There is a large discrepancy in real-world eligibility for empagliflozin between FDA & EMA labels and clinical trial criteria. Empagliflozin is cost-effective in HF patients regardless of ejection fraction in South Korea health care setting. The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in real-world HF patients should be further investigated for a broader range of clinical applications.

Background/Aims: A poor prognostic factor for Crohn’s disease (CD) includes perianal fistulizing disease, including perianal fistula and/or perianal abscess. Currently, a tool to assess perianal symptoms in patients with CD remains nonexistent. This study aimed to develop a perianal fistulizing disease self-screening questionnaire for patients with CD. Methods: This prospective pilot study was conducted at three tertiary referral centers between January 2019 and May 2020. We formulated questions on perianal symptoms, including tenesmus, anal discharge, bleeding, pain, and heat. A 4-point Likert scale was used to rate each question. Patients with CD completed a questionnaire and underwent pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Results: Overall, 93 patients were enrolled, with 51 (54.8%) diagnosed with perianal fistulizing disease, as determined by pelvic MRI. The Spearman correlation findings demonstrated that anal pain (p = 0.450, p < 0.001) and anal discharge (p = 0.556, p < 0.001) were the symptoms that most significantly correlated with perianal disease. For anal pain and discharge, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the scores was significantly higher than that of the combined score for all five symptoms (0.855 vs. 0.794, DeLong’s test p = 0.04). For the two symptoms combined, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values were 88.2, 73.8, 80.4, and 83.8%, respectively, with 81.7% accuracy for detecting perianal fistulizing disease. Conclusions This study indicates that simple questions regarding anal pain and discharge can help accurately identify the presence of perianal fistulizing disease in patients with CD.

Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), characterized by elevated serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels and normal free thyroxine levels, usually presents without symptoms, and is often discovered incidentally during routine blood test. The Task Force of the Korean Thyroid Association Committee of Clinical Practice Guidelines has established a guideline to evaluate and manage SCH; the guideline emphasizes the implementation of diagnostic criteria based on the TSH reference range for Koreans and focuses on the proven health benefits of levothyroxine (LT4) treatment. Based on the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2015), serum TSH level of 6.8 mIU/L is considered the reference value for SCH. SCH can be categorized as mild (TSH 6.8-10.0 mIU/L) or severe (TSH ＞10.0 mIU/L), and patients are classified as adults (age ＜70 years) or elderly patients (age ≥70years) depending on the health effects of LT4 treatment. An initial increase in serum TSH levels should be reassessed with a subsequent measurement, along with the thyroid peroxidase antibody test, preferably 2-3 months after the initial evaluation. Usually, LT4 treatment is not recommended for mild SCH in adults; however, treatment is necessary for severe SCH in patients with underlying coronary artery disease or heart failure and can be considered for coexisting dyslipidemia. LT4 treatment is not recommended for mild or even severe SCH in elderly patients, in general. Patients with SCH who receive LT4 treatment, the LT4 dosage should be personalized, and serum TSH levels should be monitored to ensure optimal LT4 dosage (dosage that is neither excessive nor insufficient). Patients with SCH who do not receive LT4 treatment require periodic follow-up at appropriate testing intervals determined by disease severity. The guideline also provides several educational points applicable in clinical settings.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe the desperate situation where the clinician should make decisions to further manage patients having experienced adverse drug reaction (ADR) to lamotrigine that is indicated to not easily controlled neuropsychiatric diseases. Methods: A descriptive analysis was done by thoroughly reviewing medical records of patients who were reported to have ADR to lamotrigine in a regional drug-safety center between 2010 and 2018. Results: Eighty-four cases of lamotrigine-related ADRs occurred in 80 patients. Skin lesions were most commonly observed in 70 cases (83.3%) and 14 cases (16.7%) had severe ADRs. Sixty-three subjects (78.8%) discontinued lamotrigine, while 17 (21.3%) continued it.At the time of discontinuation, 30.0% were prescribed aromatic antiepileptic drugs. Among 4 subjects who were eventually prescribed lamotrigine again after a period of discontinuation, 3 (75.0%) experienced its recurrence. Among patients who had taken alternative medications, the incidence of ADRs was higher in those being prescribed aromatic antiepileptic drugs than in the others being prescribed other than aromatic antiepileptic drugs (P = 0.013). Regarding the control of underlying diseases, as many as 65 (86.7%) and 68 (90.7%) failed to reach maintaining the resolved state from 6 months and 12 months after the substitution, respectively. Conclusion Patients can be easily trapped between the recurrence of ADRs and the treatment failure to a certain drug like lamotrigine, in which we can hardly find a reasonable alternative to manage them.