Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF patients.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Thyroid nodules represent a prevalent condition that is detectable via palpation or ultrasound. In recent years, there has been a paradigm shift toward enhanced diagnostic precision and less aggressive therapeutic approaches, highlighting the growing necessity for tailored clinical recommendations to optimize patient outcomes. The Korean Thyroid Association (KTA) has developed guidelines for managing patients with thyroid nodules, following a comprehensive review by task force members of the relevant literature identified via electronic database searches. The recommendations are provided with a level of recommendation for each section. The guidelines encompass thyroid cancer screening in high-risk groups, appropriate diagnostic methods for thyroid nodules, role of pathologic and molecular marker testing in making a diagnosis, long-term follow-up and treatment of benign thyroid nodules, and special considerations for pregnant women. The major revisions that were made in the 2023 guidelines were the definition of high-risk groups for thyroid cancer screening, application of the revised Korean Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (K-TIRADS), addition of the role of core needle biopsy and molecular marker tests, application of active surveillance in patients with low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, and updated indications for nonsurgical treatment of benign thyroid nodules. In the 2024 revision of the KTA guidelines for thyroid cancer, the evidence for some recommendations has been updated to address the tumor size in the context of active surveillance in patients with low-risk thyroid cancer and the surgical size cutoff. These evidence-based recommendations serve to inform clinical decision-making in the management of thyroid nodules, thereby facilitating the delivery of optimal and efficacious treatments to patients.

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.

For anemia management in patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis, darbepoetin alfa (DA), which has a shorter half-life but is more inexpensive than continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA), is preferred in Korea. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of once-in-4-weeks DA compared with once-in-4-weeks CERA in patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis. Methods: In this randomized, prospective, non-inferiority study, 40 erythropoiesis-stimulating agent–naïve patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis were randomized 1:1 to the DA group and CERA group. They received the study drug once in 4 weeks during 10- or 12-week correction period and 24-week efficacy evaluation period. The primary outcomes were the mean difference in the changes in hemoglobin levels between baseline and efficacy evaluation period and hemoglobin response rates during the correction period. The secondary outcomes included differences in adverse events and costs. Results: DA was non-inferior to CERA for anemia correction; the mean difference in the change in hemoglobin levels between the groups was –0.070 g/dL (95% confidence interval, –0.730 to 0.590 g/dL). Hemoglobin response rates were 100% with DA and 94.1% with CERA. Adverse events were comparable. The mean cost of DA was approximately one-third that of CERA (34,100 ± 7,600 Korean won/4 weeks vs. 115,500 ± 23,600 Korean won/4 weeks; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Once-in-4-weeks DA safely corrects anemia in erythropoiesis-stimulating agent–naïve patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis and is more cost-effective than once-in-4-weeks CERA.

Background and Objectives: Accumulating evidence shows that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, whether SGLT2i, compared with other antidiabetic drugs, reduce the new development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. In this study, we compared SGLT2i with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) in terms of reduction in the risk of AF in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Methods: We included 42,786 propensity score-matched pairs of SGLT2i and DPP-4i users without previous AF diagnosis using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database between May 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Results: During a median follow-up of 1.3 years, SGLT2i users had a lower incidence of AF than DPP-4i users (1.95 vs. 2.65 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–0.97; p=0.028]). In individuals without heart failure, SGLT2i users was associated with a decreased risk of AF incidence (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52–0.94; p=0.019) compared to DPP-4i users. However, individuals with heart failure, SGLT2i users was not significantly associated with a change in risk (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.44–2.44; p=0.936). Conclusions In this nationwide cohort study of individuals with type 2 diabetes, treatment with SGLT2i was associated with a lower risk of AF compared with treatment with DPP-4i.