Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is essential in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), but without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), a repeat EUS-FNA/B is crucial for clarifying an inconclusive diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate factors associated with improved diagnostic performance of repeat EUS-FNA/B for initially inconclusive SPL diagnoses without ROSE. Methods: Of 5,894 patients subjected to EUS-FNA/B, 237 (4.0%) with an initially inconclusive diagnosis of SPLs were retrospectively enrolled from five tertiary medical centers between January 2016 and June 2021. Diagnostic performance and procedural factors of EUS-FNA/B were analyzed. Results: The diagnostic accuracies of first and repeat EUS-FNA/B were 96.2% and 67.6%, respectively. Of 237 patients with an inconclusive diagnosis from initial EUS-FNA/B, 150were pathologically diagnosed after repeat EUS-FNA/B. In multivariate analysis of repeat EUS-FNA/B, tumor location (body/tail vs head: odds ratio [OR], 3.74; 95% confidence inter-val [CI], 1.48 to 9.46), number of needle passes (≥4 vs ≤3: OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.44 to 15.99),needle type (FNB vs FNA: OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.44 to 7.36), needle size (22 gauge vs 19/20 gauge: OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.62), and suction method (suction vs others: OR, 5.19;95% CI, 1.30 to 20.75) were associated with a significantly improved diagnostic performance. Conclusions Repeat EUS-FNA/B is essential for patients with an inconclusive EUS-FNA/B without ROSE. To improve the diagnostic performance of repeated EUS-FNA/B, it is recom-mended that 22-gauge FNB needles, ≥4 needle passes, and suction methods are used.

Background/Aims: The use of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is recommended for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Stent-related adverse events might differ according to the position of the stent through the ampulla of Vater (AOV). We retrospectively evaluated SEMS patency and adverse events according to the position of the SEMS. Methods: In total, 280 patients who underwent endoscopic SEMS placement due to malignant distal biliary obstruction were analyzed retrospectively. Suprapapillary and transpapillary SEMS insertions were performed on 51 patients and 229 patients, respectively. Results: Between the suprapapillary group (SPG) and transpapillary group (TPG), the stent patency period was not significantly different (median [95% confidence interval]: 107 days [82.3 to 131.7] vs 120 days [99.3 to 140.7], p=0.559). There was also no significant difference in the rate of adverse events. In subgroup analysis, the stent patency for an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV was found to be significantly shorter than that for an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV in the SPG (64 days [0 to 160.4] vs 127 days [82.0 to 171.9], p<0.001) and TPG (87 days [52.5 to 121.5] vs 130 [97.0 to 162.9], p<0.001). Patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV in both groups had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion (SPG: 40.0% vs 4.9%, p=0.002; TPG: 28.6% vs 2.9%, p<0.001) than patients with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV. Conclusions The SPG and TPG showed similar results in terms of stent patency and rate of adverse events. However, patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion with shorter stent patency than those with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV, regardless of stent position.

Objective: Biliary decompression through bile drainage is a key treatment for common bile duct obstruction with cholangitis. However, the effectiveness of early interventions has not been studied sufficiently in Korea. This study investigated the effectiveness of fast-track biliary decompression. Methods: A group of patients diagnosed with common bile duct obstruction with cholangitis between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, was reviewed retrospectively. We divided them into two groups: before and after the implementation of fast-track biliary decompression. The following items were analyzed in the two groups: time to intervention, number of hospital days, length of stay in the emergency department, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Results: Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, 418 patients were admitted for common bile duct obstruction, and a total of 369 patients were included in this study. Of these, 168 patients visited the hospital prior to implementation of the treatment, and 201 patients visited after implementation. The time to intervention was 6.1 (4.2-11.0) hours in the fast-track group, which was about 9 hours shorter than the other group (P<0.001). There was no statistical difference in the number of hospital days, emergency department length of stay, and ICU admissions (P=0.535, P=0.034, P=0.322). Conclusion The time to intervention was shortened significantly in the fast-track group. However, we did not observe a significant improvement in patient prognosis. It may be possible that the procedure time may need to be shortened for a better prognosis. This should be investigated in future studies.

Background and Objectives: The outcome benefits of β-blockers in chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) have not been fully assessed. We evaluated the prognostic impact of β-blockers on patients with chronic CAD after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: A total of 3,075 patients with chronic CAD were included from the Grand DrugEluting Stent registry. We analyzed β-blocker prescriptions, including doses and types, in each patient at 3-month intervals from discharge. After propensity score matching, 1,170 pairs of patients (β-blockers vs. no β-blockers) were derived. Primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI). We further analyzed the outcome benefits of different doses (low-, medium-, and high-dose) and types (conventional or vasodilating) of β-blockers. Results: During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3.1 (3.0–3.1) years, 134 (5.7%) patients experienced primary outcome. Overall, β-blockers demonstrated no significant benefit in primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–1.24), all-cause death (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60–1.25), and MI (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.49–3.15). In subgroup analysis, β-blockers were associated with a lower risk of all-cause death in patients with previous MI and/ or revascularization (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14–0.99) (p for interaction=0.045). No significant associations were found for the clinical outcomes with different doses and types of β-blockers. Conclusions Overall, β-blocker therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with chronic CAD undergoing PCI. Limited mortality benefit of β-blockers may exist for patients with previous MI and/or revascularization.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.