Objective: Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CA/R) lead to whole-body ischemia and reperfusion (IR) injury, causing multiple organ dysfunction, including ischemic spinal cord injury. The thoracic spinal cord levels are crucial for maintaining the sympathetic functions vital for life. This study examined blood-spinal cord barrier (BSCB) leakage and astrocyte endfeet (AEF) disruption and their effects on survival, physiological variables, and neuronal damage/death in the intermediate zone (IMZ) at the seventh thoracic spinal cord level after asphyxial CA/R in rats. Methods: The rats underwent whole-body IR injury by asphyxial CA/R. Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to assess the cumulative survival post-CA/R. The histological changes post-CA/R were evaluated using immunohistochemistry, histofluorescence, and double histofluorescence. Results: No significant differences in body weight, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate were found between the sham and CA/R groups post-CA/R. The survival rates in the CA/R group at 12, 24, and 48 hours were 62.58%, 36.37%, and 7.8%, respectively. Neuronal loss and BSCB leakage began 12 hours post-CA/R, increasing with time. Reactive astrogliosis appeared at 12 hours and increased, while AEF disruption around blood vessels was evident at 48 hours. Conclusion The survival rate declined significantly by 48 hours post-CA/R. Neuronal loss and BSCB leakage in the thoracic spinal cord IMZ was evident at 12 hours and significant by 48 hours, aligning with AEF disruption. Neuronal loss in the thoracic spinal cord IMZ post-CA/R may be related to BSCB leakage and AEF disruption.

Objective: Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CA/R) lead to whole-body ischemia and reperfusion (IR) injury, causing multiple organ dysfunction, including ischemic spinal cord injury. The thoracic spinal cord levels are crucial for maintaining the sympathetic functions vital for life. This study examined blood-spinal cord barrier (BSCB) leakage and astrocyte endfeet (AEF) disruption and their effects on survival, physiological variables, and neuronal damage/death in the intermediate zone (IMZ) at the seventh thoracic spinal cord level after asphyxial CA/R in rats. Methods: The rats underwent whole-body IR injury by asphyxial CA/R. Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to assess the cumulative survival post-CA/R. The histological changes post-CA/R were evaluated using immunohistochemistry, histofluorescence, and double histofluorescence. Results: No significant differences in body weight, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate were found between the sham and CA/R groups post-CA/R. The survival rates in the CA/R group at 12, 24, and 48 hours were 62.58%, 36.37%, and 7.8%, respectively. Neuronal loss and BSCB leakage began 12 hours post-CA/R, increasing with time. Reactive astrogliosis appeared at 12 hours and increased, while AEF disruption around blood vessels was evident at 48 hours. Conclusion The survival rate declined significantly by 48 hours post-CA/R. Neuronal loss and BSCB leakage in the thoracic spinal cord IMZ was evident at 12 hours and significant by 48 hours, aligning with AEF disruption. Neuronal loss in the thoracic spinal cord IMZ post-CA/R may be related to BSCB leakage and AEF disruption.

Objective: Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CA/R) lead to whole-body ischemia and reperfusion (IR) injury, causing multiple organ dysfunction, including ischemic spinal cord injury. The thoracic spinal cord levels are crucial for maintaining the sympathetic functions vital for life. This study examined blood-spinal cord barrier (BSCB) leakage and astrocyte endfeet (AEF) disruption and their effects on survival, physiological variables, and neuronal damage/death in the intermediate zone (IMZ) at the seventh thoracic spinal cord level after asphyxial CA/R in rats. Methods: The rats underwent whole-body IR injury by asphyxial CA/R. Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to assess the cumulative survival post-CA/R. The histological changes post-CA/R were evaluated using immunohistochemistry, histofluorescence, and double histofluorescence. Results: No significant differences in body weight, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate were found between the sham and CA/R groups post-CA/R. The survival rates in the CA/R group at 12, 24, and 48 hours were 62.58%, 36.37%, and 7.8%, respectively. Neuronal loss and BSCB leakage began 12 hours post-CA/R, increasing with time. Reactive astrogliosis appeared at 12 hours and increased, while AEF disruption around blood vessels was evident at 48 hours. Conclusion The survival rate declined significantly by 48 hours post-CA/R. Neuronal loss and BSCB leakage in the thoracic spinal cord IMZ was evident at 12 hours and significant by 48 hours, aligning with AEF disruption. Neuronal loss in the thoracic spinal cord IMZ post-CA/R may be related to BSCB leakage and AEF disruption.

Multiple myeloma (MM), a hematological malignancy, is characterized by malignant plasma cell proliferation in the bone marrow. Recent treatment advances have significantly improved patient outcomes associated with MM.In this study, we aimed to develop comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treat‑ ment of MM. We identified 12 key clinical questions essential for MM management, guiding the extensive literature review and meta-analysis of the study. Our guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations by integrating patient preferences with survey data. These recommendations include current and emerging diagnostic tools, thera‑ peutic agents, and treatment strategies. By prioritizing a patient-centered approach and rigorous data analysis, these guidelines were developed to enhance MM management, both in Korea and globally.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Purpose: For the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), research on primary lesions with mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement is lacking. This study analyzed the clinical outcomes and efficacy of dose-escalated neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) to patients with LARC involving MRF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 301 patients who were diagnosed with LARC involving MRF and underwent NCRT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). Patients who received radiotherapy (RT) doses of ≤50.4 Gy were defined as the non-boost group, while ≥54.0 Gy as the boost group. Pathological tumor response and survival outcomes, including intrapelvic recurrence-free survival (IPRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS), were analyzed. Results: A total of 269 patients (89.4%) achieved a negative pathological circumferential resection margin and 104 (34.6%) had good pathological tumor regression grades. With a median follow-up of 32.4 months, IPRFS, DMFS, and OS rates at 5-years were 88.6%, 78.0%, and 91.2%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis by RT dose, the boost group included more advanced clinical stages of patients. For the non-boost group and boost group, 5-year IPRFS rates were 90.3% and 87.0% (p = 0.242), 5-year DMFS rates were 82.0% and 71.3% (p = 0.105), and 5-year OS rates were 93.0% and 80.6% (p = 0.439), respectively. Treatment related toxicity was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.211). Conclusion Although this retrospective study failed to confirm the efficacy of dose-escalated NCRT, favorable IPRFS and pathological complete response was achieved with NCRT followed by TME. Further studies combining patient customized RT dose with systemic therapies are needed.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: The risk of device thrombosis and device-oriented clinical outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was reported to be significantly higher than with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, optimal device implantation may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving BVS. The current study evaluated mid-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS with meticulous device optimization under intravascular imaging guidance. Methods: The SMART-REWARD and PERSPECTIVE-PCI registries in Korea prospectively enrolled 390 patients with BVS and 675 patients with DES, respectively. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years and the secondary major endpoint was patientoriented composite outcome (POCO) at 2 years. Results: Patient-level pooled analysis evaluated 1,003 patients (377 patients with BVS and 626 patients with DES). Mean scaffold diameter per lesion was 3.24 ± 0.30 mm in BVS group.Most BVSs were implanted with pre-dilatation (90.9%), intravascular imaging guidance (74.9%), and post-dilatation (73.1%) at proximal to mid segment (81.9%) in target vessel.Patients treated with BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF (2.9% vs. 3.7%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.283, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487–3.378, P = 0.615) and 2-year POCO (4.5% vs. 5.9%, adjusted HR, 1.413, 95% CI, 0.663–3.012,P = 0.370) than those with DES. The rate of 2-year definite or probable device thrombosis (0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.424) was also similar. The sensitivity analyses consistently showed comparable risk of TVF and POCO between the 2 groups. Conclusion With meticulous device optimization under imaging guidance and avoidance of implantation in small vessels, BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF and device thrombosis with DES.