Background: s/Aims: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is the standard treatment for periampullary tumors, but it is technically challenging. Evidence directly comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic, and hybrid approaches is limited. This study conducts a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open PD (OPD), laparoscopic PD (LPD), robotic PD (RPD), and hybrid PD. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 1994 and August 2024.We included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies that evaluated at least two PD approaches. Perioperative outcomes were the primary endpoints, while oncologic safety served as a secondary endpoint. A random-effects NMA was performed, establishing treatment hierarchies through ranking probabilities (PROSPERO ID: CRD420250365864). Results: A total of 78 studies were included (5 randomized and 73 retrospective). RPD was associated with lower blood loss compared to OPD (mean difference [MD], –163.85 mL) and LPD (MD, –84.14 mL). Hospital stays were also shorter for RPD compared to OPD (MD, –2.50 days) and LPD (MD, –1.88 days). In contrast, OPD was the most time-efficient approach compared to LPD (MD, –77.61 minutes) and RPD (MD, –73.30 minutes). Mortality rates, severe complications, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, and reoperation rates were comparable across all surgical approaches. In terms of oncologic safety, lymph node yield and R0 resection rates were similar for all modalities. Conclusions While OPD is the most time-efficient approach, RPD provides significant advantages in reducing intraoperative blood loss and shortening hospital stays compared to both LPD and OPD.

Background: and Purpose The Treat Stroke to Target (TST) was a randomized clinical trial involving French and Korean patients demonstrating that a lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C, <70 mg/dL) target group (LT) experienced fewer cerebro-cardiovascular events than a higher target (90–110 mg/dL) group (HT). However, whether these results can be applied to Asian patients with different ischemic stroke subtypes remains unclear. Methods: Patients from 14 South Korean centers were analyzed separately. Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack with evidence of atherosclerosis were randomized into LT and HT groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary or cerebral revascularization, and cardiovascular death. Results: Among 712 enrolled patients, the mean LDL-C level was 71.0 mg/dL in 357 LT patients and 86.1 mg/dL in 355 HT patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 24 (6.7%) of LT and in 31 (8.7%) of HT group patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.45–1.33, P=0.353). Cardiovascular events alone occurred significantly less frequently in the LT than in the HT group (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09–0.80, P=0.019), whereas there were no significant differences in ischemic stroke events (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.60–2.10, P=0.712). The benefit of LT was less apparent in patients with small vessel disease and intracranial atherosclerosis than in those with extracranial atherosclerosis. Conclusion In contrast to the French TST, the outcomes in Korean patients were neutral. Although LT was more effective in preventing cardiovascular diseases, it was not so in stroke prevention, probably attributed to the differences in stroke subtypes. Further studies are needed to elucidate the efficacy of statins and appropriate LDL-C targets in Asian patients with stroke.

Background: and Purpose The Treat Stroke to Target (TST) was a randomized clinical trial involving French and Korean patients demonstrating that a lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C, <70 mg/dL) target group (LT) experienced fewer cerebro-cardiovascular events than a higher target (90–110 mg/dL) group (HT). However, whether these results can be applied to Asian patients with different ischemic stroke subtypes remains unclear. Methods: Patients from 14 South Korean centers were analyzed separately. Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack with evidence of atherosclerosis were randomized into LT and HT groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary or cerebral revascularization, and cardiovascular death. Results: Among 712 enrolled patients, the mean LDL-C level was 71.0 mg/dL in 357 LT patients and 86.1 mg/dL in 355 HT patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 24 (6.7%) of LT and in 31 (8.7%) of HT group patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.45–1.33, P=0.353). Cardiovascular events alone occurred significantly less frequently in the LT than in the HT group (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09–0.80, P=0.019), whereas there were no significant differences in ischemic stroke events (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.60–2.10, P=0.712). The benefit of LT was less apparent in patients with small vessel disease and intracranial atherosclerosis than in those with extracranial atherosclerosis. Conclusion In contrast to the French TST, the outcomes in Korean patients were neutral. Although LT was more effective in preventing cardiovascular diseases, it was not so in stroke prevention, probably attributed to the differences in stroke subtypes. Further studies are needed to elucidate the efficacy of statins and appropriate LDL-C targets in Asian patients with stroke.

Background: and Purpose The Treat Stroke to Target (TST) was a randomized clinical trial involving French and Korean patients demonstrating that a lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C, <70 mg/dL) target group (LT) experienced fewer cerebro-cardiovascular events than a higher target (90–110 mg/dL) group (HT). However, whether these results can be applied to Asian patients with different ischemic stroke subtypes remains unclear. Methods: Patients from 14 South Korean centers were analyzed separately. Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack with evidence of atherosclerosis were randomized into LT and HT groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary or cerebral revascularization, and cardiovascular death. Results: Among 712 enrolled patients, the mean LDL-C level was 71.0 mg/dL in 357 LT patients and 86.1 mg/dL in 355 HT patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 24 (6.7%) of LT and in 31 (8.7%) of HT group patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.45–1.33, P=0.353). Cardiovascular events alone occurred significantly less frequently in the LT than in the HT group (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09–0.80, P=0.019), whereas there were no significant differences in ischemic stroke events (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.60–2.10, P=0.712). The benefit of LT was less apparent in patients with small vessel disease and intracranial atherosclerosis than in those with extracranial atherosclerosis. Conclusion In contrast to the French TST, the outcomes in Korean patients were neutral. Although LT was more effective in preventing cardiovascular diseases, it was not so in stroke prevention, probably attributed to the differences in stroke subtypes. Further studies are needed to elucidate the efficacy of statins and appropriate LDL-C targets in Asian patients with stroke.

Objective: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been prolonged, the pre-hospital screening test performed in hospitals has changed from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to rapid antigen test (RAT). RAT has lower sensitivity than PCR, but a lower cost and shorter test time. In the hospital where this study was conducted, the preadmission COVID-19 test was changed from PCR to RAT on February 24, 2023. This study compared the efficacy of PCR and RAT as the pre-admission COVID-19 test. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study comparing two periods, 90 days from November 25, 2022 to February 23, 2023, and 90 days from February 28, 2023 to May 29, 2023. Patients hospitalized from the emergency medical center during these two periods were included. Binomial logistic regression was used to compare the emergency department length of stay (ED LOS) between the two groups (PCR vs. RAT). Logistic regression was used to compare the mortality. Results: Four thousand seven hundred and thirty-eight patients were admitted through the emergency room: 2,202 patients in the PCR group and 2,443 patients in the RAT group. No statistically significant differences in the characteristics and severity were observed between the two groups. The mean ED LOS of PCR 5.07 hours (interquartile range, 3.80-6.75) was longer than RAT 3.65 hours (interquartile range, 2.83-4.68) (P<0.001). Mortality was higher in PCR 8.9% than RAT 6.6% (P=0.005). Conclusion The study showed that ED LOS and mortality were reduced when using RAT rather than PCR as a preadmission COVID-19 test.

Background and Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent sleep disorder characterized by recurrent upper airway obstruction, leading to disrupted sleep and various health complications. Positional OSA (POSA) refers to patients whose OSA severity is significantly influenced by body position, especially when lying supine. This study aimed to evaluate the polysomnographic characteristics of POSA and non-positional OSA (non-POSA) and to assess their clinical implications. Methods: This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with OSA who underwent type 1 polysomnography. Patients were categorized into POSA and non-POSA groups based on whether their apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in the supine position was at least twice as high as that in the lateral position. We collected and analyzed clinical and polysomnographic parameters, including AHI, oxygen desaturation index, arousal index, nadir peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and sleep position proportions. These were compared across different OSA severity levels—mild, moderate, and severe—to assess differences between the POSA and non-POSA groups. Results: In total, 500 patients with OSA were analyzed, of whom 63.4% were classified as having POSA. Patients with POSA exhibited milder disease severity than those without, with an average AHI of 23.3±15.3/h versus 43.9±27.9/h, respectively, and a higher nadir SpO2 of 82.8%±6.6% versus 77.1%±9.8%. POSA was more common in patients with mild OSA (76.5%) and moderate OSA (72.8%), while severe OSA cases were predominantly non-POSA (POSA was 47.4%). Moreover, patients with POSA spent significantly more sleep time in the lateral position (43.8%±22.7%) than non-POSA patients (27.2%±28.2%). Conclusion Patients with POSA generally exhibited milder disease and more favorable polysomnographic profiles than non-POSA patients. POSA is prevalent in mild-to-moderate OSA, and identifying it via polysomnography may inform tailored treatment strategies.

Background and Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent sleep disorder characterized by recurrent upper airway obstruction, leading to disrupted sleep and various health complications. Positional OSA (POSA) refers to patients whose OSA severity is significantly influenced by body position, especially when lying supine. This study aimed to evaluate the polysomnographic characteristics of POSA and non-positional OSA (non-POSA) and to assess their clinical implications. Methods: This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with OSA who underwent type 1 polysomnography. Patients were categorized into POSA and non-POSA groups based on whether their apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in the supine position was at least twice as high as that in the lateral position. We collected and analyzed clinical and polysomnographic parameters, including AHI, oxygen desaturation index, arousal index, nadir peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and sleep position proportions. These were compared across different OSA severity levels—mild, moderate, and severe—to assess differences between the POSA and non-POSA groups. Results: In total, 500 patients with OSA were analyzed, of whom 63.4% were classified as having POSA. Patients with POSA exhibited milder disease severity than those without, with an average AHI of 23.3±15.3/h versus 43.9±27.9/h, respectively, and a higher nadir SpO2 of 82.8%±6.6% versus 77.1%±9.8%. POSA was more common in patients with mild OSA (76.5%) and moderate OSA (72.8%), while severe OSA cases were predominantly non-POSA (POSA was 47.4%). Moreover, patients with POSA spent significantly more sleep time in the lateral position (43.8%±22.7%) than non-POSA patients (27.2%±28.2%). Conclusion Patients with POSA generally exhibited milder disease and more favorable polysomnographic profiles than non-POSA patients. POSA is prevalent in mild-to-moderate OSA, and identifying it via polysomnography may inform tailored treatment strategies.

Background and Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent sleep disorder characterized by recurrent upper airway obstruction, leading to disrupted sleep and various health complications. Positional OSA (POSA) refers to patients whose OSA severity is significantly influenced by body position, especially when lying supine. This study aimed to evaluate the polysomnographic characteristics of POSA and non-positional OSA (non-POSA) and to assess their clinical implications. Methods: This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with OSA who underwent type 1 polysomnography. Patients were categorized into POSA and non-POSA groups based on whether their apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in the supine position was at least twice as high as that in the lateral position. We collected and analyzed clinical and polysomnographic parameters, including AHI, oxygen desaturation index, arousal index, nadir peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and sleep position proportions. These were compared across different OSA severity levels—mild, moderate, and severe—to assess differences between the POSA and non-POSA groups. Results: In total, 500 patients with OSA were analyzed, of whom 63.4% were classified as having POSA. Patients with POSA exhibited milder disease severity than those without, with an average AHI of 23.3±15.3/h versus 43.9±27.9/h, respectively, and a higher nadir SpO2 of 82.8%±6.6% versus 77.1%±9.8%. POSA was more common in patients with mild OSA (76.5%) and moderate OSA (72.8%), while severe OSA cases were predominantly non-POSA (POSA was 47.4%). Moreover, patients with POSA spent significantly more sleep time in the lateral position (43.8%±22.7%) than non-POSA patients (27.2%±28.2%). Conclusion Patients with POSA generally exhibited milder disease and more favorable polysomnographic profiles than non-POSA patients. POSA is prevalent in mild-to-moderate OSA, and identifying it via polysomnography may inform tailored treatment strategies.

Background/Aims: This study compared the effectiveness and safety of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) in real-life clinical practice. Methods: The data from genotype 1 or 2 chronic hepatitis C patients treated with GLE/PIB or sofosbuvir + ribavirin or SOF/LDV in South Korea were collected retrospectively. The analysis included the treatment completion rate, sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12) test rate, treatment effectiveness, and adverse events. Results: Seven hundred and eighty-two patients with genotype 1 or 2 chronic hepatitis C who were treated with GLE/PIB (n=575) or SOF/LDV (n=207) were included in this retrospective study. The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics revealed significant statistical differences in age, genotype, ascites, liver cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma between the GLE/PIB and SOF/LDV groups. Twenty-two patients did not complete the treatment protocol. The treatment completion rate was high for both regimens without statistical significance (97.7% vs. 95.7%, p=0.08). The overall SVR12 of intention-to-treat analysis was 81.2% vs. 80.7% without statistical significance (p=0.87). The overall SVR12 of per protocol analysis was 98.7% vs. 100% without statistical significance (p=0.14). Six patients treated with GLE/PIB experienced treatment failure. They were all male, genotype 2, and showed a negative hepatitis C virus RNA level at the end of treatment. Two patients treated with GLE/PIB stopped medication because of fever and abdominal discomfort. Conclusions Both regimens had similar treatment completion rates, effectiveness, and safety profiles. Therefore, the SOF/LDV regimen can also be considered a viable DAA for the treatment of patients with genotype 1 or 2 chronic hepatitis C.