Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Objective: The Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) is a relatively specific test for bipolar disorders designed to assess the main functioning problems experienced by patients. This brief instrument includes 24 items assessing impairment or disability in 6 domains of functioning: autonomy, occupational functioning, cognitive functioning, financial issues, interpersonal relationships, and leisure time. It has already been translated into standardized versions in several languages. The aim of this study is to measure the validity and reliability of the Korean version of FAST (K-FAST). Methods: A total of 209 bipolar disorder patients were recruited from 14 centers in Korea. K-FAST, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument Brief Form (WHOQOL-BREF) were administered, and psychometric analysis of the K-FAST was conducted. Results: The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the K-FAST was 0.95. Test-retest reliability analysis showed a strong correlation between the two measures assessed at a 1-week interval (ICC = 0.97; p ＜ 0.001). The K-FAST exhibited significant correlations with GAF (r = −0.771), WHOQOL-BREF (r = −0.326), YMRS (r = 0.509) and BDRS (r = 0.598). A strong negative correlation with GAF pointed to a reasonable degree of concurrent validity. Although the exploratory factor analysis showed four factors, the confirmatory factor analysis of questionnaires had a good fit for a six factors model (CFI = 0.925; TLI = 0.912; RMSEA = 0.078). Conclusion The K-FAST has good psychometric properties, good internal consistency, and can be applicable and acceptable to the Korean context.

The objective of this study was to compare recommendations of the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder 2022 (KMAP-BP 2022) with other recently published guidelines for treating bipolar disorder. We reviewed a total of six recently published global treatment guidelines and compared treatment recommendation of the KMAP-BP 2022 with those of other guidelines. For initial treatment of mania, there were no significant differences across treatment guidelines. All guidelines recommended mood stabilizer (MS) or atypical antipsychotic (AAP) monotherapy or a combination of an MS with an AAP as a first-line treatment strategy in a same degree for mania. However, the KMAP-BP 2022 recommended MS + AAP combination therapy for psychotic mania, mixed mania and psychotic depression as treatment of choice. Aripiprazole, quetiapine and olanzapine were the first-line AAPs for nearly all phases of bipolar disorder across guidelines. Some guideline suggested olanzapine is a second-line options during maintenance treatment, related to concern about long-term tolerability. Most guidelines advocated newer AAPs (asenapine, cariprazine, long-acting injectable risperidone, and aripiprazole once monthly) as first-line treatment options for all phases while lamotrigine was recommended for depressive and maintenance phases. Lithium and valproic acid were commonly used as MSs in all phases of bipolar disorder. KMAP-BP 2022 guidelines were similar to other guidelines, reflecting current changes in prescription patterns for bipolar disorder based on accumulated research data. Strong preference for combination therapy was characteristic of KMAP-BP 2022, predominantly in the treatment of psychotic mania, mixed mania and psychotic depression.

Objective: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia by adapting existing high-quality clinical guidelines with a view to improve the clinical symptoms and long-term quality of life of patients by providing appropriate management. Methods: This guideline was developed according to the ADAPTE methodology. The adaptation process included determining key health questions, systematically searching and screening guidelines, evaluating the quality and contents of these guidelines, deriving recommendations for key questions, and performing a peer review. The selection criteria for the guideline search were (1) evidence-based guidelines, (2) published within the last 5 years, and (3) written in English or Korean. Results: After evaluating the quality and content, we finally selected three guidelines for adaptation. The final output of the development process was 25 recommendations for 10 key questions. We adopted the Agency for Health Research Quality methodology and presented the level of evidence from levels I to IV. In addition, we defined the recommendation grades from grade A (strongly recommended) to D (no recommendation) based on the level of evidence and clinical significance of the recommendation. Conclusion The development and dissemination of the adapted guideline is expected to increase the certainty of medical decision making and improve the quality of medical care. Further studies on the effectiveness and applicability of the developed guideline are necessary.

Background: Large-scale studies about epidemiologic characteristics of renal infarction (RI) are few. In this study, we aimed to analyze the incidence and prevalence of RI with comorbidities in the South Korean population. Methods: We investigated the medical history of the entire South Korean adult population between 2013 and 2019 using the National Health Insurance Service database (n = 51,849,591 in 2019). Diagnosis of RI comorbidities were confirmed with International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Epidemiologic characteristics, distribution of comorbidities according to etiologic mechanisms, and trend of antithrombotic agents were estimated. Results: During the 7-years, 10,496 patients were newly diagnosed with RI. The incidence rate increased from 2.68 to 3.06 per 100,000 person-years during the study period.The incidence rate of RI increased with age peaking in the 70s with 1.41 times male predominance. The most common comorbidity was hypertension, followed by dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus. Regarding etiologic risk factor distribution, high embolic risk group, renovascular disease group, and hypercoagulable state group accounted for 16.6%, 29.1%, and 13.7% on average, respectively. For the antithrombotic treatment of RI, the prescription of antiplatelet agent gradually decreased from 17.0% to 13.0% while that of anticoagulation agent was maintained around 35%. The proportion of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants remarkably increased from only 1.4% to 17.6%. Conclusion Considering the progressively increasing incidence of RI and high prevalence of coexisting risk factors, constant efforts to raise awareness of the disease are necessary. The current epidemiologic investigation of RI would be the stepping-stone to establishing future studies about clinical outcomes and optimal treatment strategies.

Background/Aims: We aimed to analyze the efficacy of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) by the disease course of heart failure (HF). Methods: We evaluated 227 patients with HF in a multi-center retrospective cohort that included those with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% undergoing ARNI treatment. The patients were divided into patients with newly diagnosed HF with ARNI treatment initiated within 6 months of diagnosis (de novo HF group) and those who were diagnosed or admitted for HF exacerbation for more than 6 months prior to initiation of ARNI treatment (prior HF group). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death and worsening HF, including hospitalization or an emergency visit for HF aggravation within 12 months. Results: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were reported between the de novo and prior HF groups. The prior HF group was significantly associated with a higher primary outcome (23.9 vs. 9.4%) than the de novo HF group (adjusted hazard ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval 1.06–5.96, p = 0.036), although on a higher initial dose. The de novo HF group showed better LVEF improvement after 1 year (12.0% vs 7.4%, p = 0.010). Further, the discontinuation rate of diuretics after 1 year was numerically higher in the de novo group than the prior HF group (34.4 vs 18.5%, p = 0.064). Conclusions The de novo HF group had a lower risk of the primary composite outcome than the prior HF group in patients with reduced ejection fraction who were treated with ARNI.

Objectives: Treatment guidelines or an algorithm can help clinicians implement better practices and clinical decisions. Therefore, the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder 2022 (KMAP-BP 2022) was revised again through a consensus of expert opinion. The diagnosis and treatment of mixed features are not simple, and there are many things to discuss. We describe the preferences and recommendations from KMAP-BP 2022 for the treatment of mood episodes with mixed features. Methods: We revised the KMAP-BP 2018 questionnaire and conducted the survey with expert clinicians. Out of ninety-three members of the review committee, eighty-seven completed the survey. We analyzed the answers, discussed the data, and held a clinician hearing. Results: In first-step strategies for mixed features with more manic symptoms, a combination of a mood stabilizer and an atypical antipsychotic is the treatment of choice. Mood stabilizer monotherapy and atypical antipsychotic monotherapy are preferred strategies. For mixed features with more depressive symptoms, a combination of mood stabilizer and atypical antipsychotic, a combination of atypical antipsychotic and lamotrigine (LMT), atypical antipsychotic monotherapy, a combination of mood stabilizer and LMT, and mood stabilizer monotherapy are preferred. For mixed features with similar manic symptoms and depressive symptoms, a combination of mood stabilizer and atypical antipsychotic, atypical antipsychotic monotherapy, and mood stabilizer monotherapy are preferred. Conclusion For mixed features, a combination of mood stabilizer and atypical antipsychotic is generally preferred, and LMT is preferred for depressive symptoms. Compared with KMAP-BP 2018, more diverse strategies and drugs are being attempted for the treatment of mixed features.