Background/Aims: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of national healthcare, the amount of medical waste generated by GIE procedures is not reported in South Korea. This study aimed to measure the amount of medical waste generated from GIE procedures in South Korea. Methods: We conducted a 5-day audit of medical waste generated during GIEs at seven hospitals. During the study period, medical waste in the endoscopy examination rooms was measured twice daily and documented as mass (kg). To calculate the mean mass of disposable waste generated during one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and one colonoscopy, the mean mass of medical waste generated from seven examinations was calculated. The mean mass of medical waste generated during GIEs was calculated by dividing the total mass of medical waste generated by the number of GIE procedures. Results: Overall, 3,922 endoscopies were performed and 4,558 kg of waste was generated. The mean weight of medical waste generated per endoscopy was 1.34 kg. Each EGD and colonoscopy generated a mean of 0.24 kg and 0.43 kg of disposable waste, respectively. Applying the mean waste estimates from this study to annual GIE procedures performed in South Korea in 2022 showed that the total medical waste produced from GIE was 13,704,453 kg. In addition, the total masses of medical waste produced during EGD and colonoscopy procedures were 819,766 kg and 2,889,478 kg, respectively. Conclusions Our quantitative measurement showed that a large amount of medical waste is generated from GIE procedures. However, further research is warranted to reduce medical waste generated during GIE, which is an urgent unmet need.

Background/Aims: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of national healthcare, the amount of medical waste generated by GIE procedures is not reported in South Korea. This study aimed to measure the amount of medical waste generated from GIE procedures in South Korea. Methods: We conducted a 5-day audit of medical waste generated during GIEs at seven hospitals. During the study period, medical waste in the endoscopy examination rooms was measured twice daily and documented as mass (kg). To calculate the mean mass of disposable waste generated during one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and one colonoscopy, the mean mass of medical waste generated from seven examinations was calculated. The mean mass of medical waste generated during GIEs was calculated by dividing the total mass of medical waste generated by the number of GIE procedures. Results: Overall, 3,922 endoscopies were performed and 4,558 kg of waste was generated. The mean weight of medical waste generated per endoscopy was 1.34 kg. Each EGD and colonoscopy generated a mean of 0.24 kg and 0.43 kg of disposable waste, respectively. Applying the mean waste estimates from this study to annual GIE procedures performed in South Korea in 2022 showed that the total medical waste produced from GIE was 13,704,453 kg. In addition, the total masses of medical waste produced during EGD and colonoscopy procedures were 819,766 kg and 2,889,478 kg, respectively. Conclusions Our quantitative measurement showed that a large amount of medical waste is generated from GIE procedures. However, further research is warranted to reduce medical waste generated during GIE, which is an urgent unmet need.

Background/Aims: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of national healthcare, the amount of medical waste generated by GIE procedures is not reported in South Korea. This study aimed to measure the amount of medical waste generated from GIE procedures in South Korea. Methods: We conducted a 5-day audit of medical waste generated during GIEs at seven hospitals. During the study period, medical waste in the endoscopy examination rooms was measured twice daily and documented as mass (kg). To calculate the mean mass of disposable waste generated during one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and one colonoscopy, the mean mass of medical waste generated from seven examinations was calculated. The mean mass of medical waste generated during GIEs was calculated by dividing the total mass of medical waste generated by the number of GIE procedures. Results: Overall, 3,922 endoscopies were performed and 4,558 kg of waste was generated. The mean weight of medical waste generated per endoscopy was 1.34 kg. Each EGD and colonoscopy generated a mean of 0.24 kg and 0.43 kg of disposable waste, respectively. Applying the mean waste estimates from this study to annual GIE procedures performed in South Korea in 2022 showed that the total medical waste produced from GIE was 13,704,453 kg. In addition, the total masses of medical waste produced during EGD and colonoscopy procedures were 819,766 kg and 2,889,478 kg, respectively. Conclusions Our quantitative measurement showed that a large amount of medical waste is generated from GIE procedures. However, further research is warranted to reduce medical waste generated during GIE, which is an urgent unmet need.

Background/Aims: Although gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is a major contributor to the carbon footprint of national healthcare, the amount of medical waste generated by GIE procedures is not reported in South Korea. This study aimed to measure the amount of medical waste generated from GIE procedures in South Korea. Methods: We conducted a 5-day audit of medical waste generated during GIEs at seven hospitals. During the study period, medical waste in the endoscopy examination rooms was measured twice daily and documented as mass (kg). To calculate the mean mass of disposable waste generated during one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and one colonoscopy, the mean mass of medical waste generated from seven examinations was calculated. The mean mass of medical waste generated during GIEs was calculated by dividing the total mass of medical waste generated by the number of GIE procedures. Results: Overall, 3,922 endoscopies were performed and 4,558 kg of waste was generated. The mean weight of medical waste generated per endoscopy was 1.34 kg. Each EGD and colonoscopy generated a mean of 0.24 kg and 0.43 kg of disposable waste, respectively. Applying the mean waste estimates from this study to annual GIE procedures performed in South Korea in 2022 showed that the total medical waste produced from GIE was 13,704,453 kg. In addition, the total masses of medical waste produced during EGD and colonoscopy procedures were 819,766 kg and 2,889,478 kg, respectively. Conclusions Our quantitative measurement showed that a large amount of medical waste is generated from GIE procedures. However, further research is warranted to reduce medical waste generated during GIE, which is an urgent unmet need.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background/Aims: Based on their anatomy, cholangiocarcinomas (CCAs) are classified into intrahepatic, hilar, and distal CCAs. Although the diagnosis and treatment of each type of CCA are thought to be different, real-world data studies on the current practice are limited. Therefore, this study was designed to capture the current practice of diagnosing and treating perihilar CCA in Korea. Methods: We conducted a survey using an online platform. The questionnaire consisted of 18 questions designed to evaluate the current practice of diagnosing and treating perihilar CCA in Korea. The targets of this survey were biliary endoscopists who are members of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association. Results: In total, 119 biliary endoscopists completed the survey. Of the respondents, 89.9% thought that the use of the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) system is necessary to classify CCA. Approximately half of the respondents would recommend surgery or chemotherapy until patients were 80 years of age. For the pathological diagnosis of CCA, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with biopsy was the most preferred modality. Routine preoperative biliary drainage was performed by 44.5% of the respondents. For operable CCAs, 64.7% of the respondents preferred endoscopic biliary drainage using plastic stents. For palliative biliary drainage, 69.7% of the respondents used plastic stents. For palliative endoscopic biliary drainage using metal stents, 63% of the respondents preferred the stent-in-stent method. Conclusions A new coding system using the ICD-11 is needed for classifying CCAs. Guidelines for diagnosing and treating CCA based on the clinical situation in Korea are needed.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.