Subglottic stenosis (SGS) and tracheal stenosis (TS) are rare conditions that can cause significant breathing difficulties and, if not properly managed, may lead to life-threatening complications. Despite their clinical importance, debate continues regarding the optimal management of adult SGS and TS, and no comprehensive guidelines have been established to date. The Korean Bronchoesophagological Society appointed a task force to develop clinical practice guidelines with the goal of providing evidence-based recommendations for managing SGS and TS in adults. The task force conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using predefined search terms aligned with key clinical questions. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which also informed the formulation and reporting of the recommendations. The strength of each recommendation reflects the guideline panel’s confidence that the benefits of an intervention outweigh its risks for eligible patients. After drafting the guidelines, feedback was obtained through Delphi questionnaires completed by members of the Korean Bronchoesophagological Society. Ultimately, the committee developed 17 evidence-based recommendations across four categories: initial evaluation, medical management, surgical treatment, and postoperative management and rehabilitation. These guidelines aim to support clinicians in delivering optimal care to adult patients with SGS and TS.

Purpose: Breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutation is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer, and clinical interest in prophylactic mastectomy has increased in recent years.We investigated patients who were BRCA mutation carriers and underwent contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), focusing on the incidence of occult malignancy after contralateral RRM. Methods: Prospectively collected data of patients with breast cancer treated at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who underwent RRM with BRCA mutation who underwent RRM between January 2010 and November 2023 were included in this study.Among patients who underwent contralateral RRM, those with a primary cancer diagnosis were included, and those with occult malignancy on the contralateral RRM side were reviewed additionally. The demographics and pathologies of both primary breast cancer and occult malignancies were evaluated. Results: In our institution, 925 patients were identified as BRCA mutation carriers, and 320 patients underwent contralateral RRM along with primary breast cancer surgery. BRCA2 mutation occurred more frequently (54.8%) in the overall BRCA mutation cohort. Furthermore, we reviewed 320 patients diagnosed with breast cancer and detected as BRCA mutation carriers who underwent contralateral RRM; high proportion of them were BRCA1 mutation carriers.Interestingly, we found a low incidence of only seven patients (2.2%) with occult malignancy on contralateral RRM side, which is different from that reported in other nations. Conclusion The incidence of occult malignancy in the contralateral breast of breast cancer patients with breast cancer with BRCA mutation is significantly low, and may be influenced by several factors. Increased utilization of screening and advancements in diagnostic technologies in South Korea have reduced the chance of occult malignancy in RRM, and a variety of pathologic examination methods may affect the rate of incidence.

Purpose: Breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutation is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer, and clinical interest in prophylactic mastectomy has increased in recent years.We investigated patients who were BRCA mutation carriers and underwent contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), focusing on the incidence of occult malignancy after contralateral RRM. Methods: Prospectively collected data of patients with breast cancer treated at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who underwent RRM with BRCA mutation who underwent RRM between January 2010 and November 2023 were included in this study.Among patients who underwent contralateral RRM, those with a primary cancer diagnosis were included, and those with occult malignancy on the contralateral RRM side were reviewed additionally. The demographics and pathologies of both primary breast cancer and occult malignancies were evaluated. Results: In our institution, 925 patients were identified as BRCA mutation carriers, and 320 patients underwent contralateral RRM along with primary breast cancer surgery. BRCA2 mutation occurred more frequently (54.8%) in the overall BRCA mutation cohort. Furthermore, we reviewed 320 patients diagnosed with breast cancer and detected as BRCA mutation carriers who underwent contralateral RRM; high proportion of them were BRCA1 mutation carriers.Interestingly, we found a low incidence of only seven patients (2.2%) with occult malignancy on contralateral RRM side, which is different from that reported in other nations. Conclusion The incidence of occult malignancy in the contralateral breast of breast cancer patients with breast cancer with BRCA mutation is significantly low, and may be influenced by several factors. Increased utilization of screening and advancements in diagnostic technologies in South Korea have reduced the chance of occult malignancy in RRM, and a variety of pathologic examination methods may affect the rate of incidence.

Purpose: Breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutation is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer, and clinical interest in prophylactic mastectomy has increased in recent years.We investigated patients who were BRCA mutation carriers and underwent contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), focusing on the incidence of occult malignancy after contralateral RRM. Methods: Prospectively collected data of patients with breast cancer treated at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who underwent RRM with BRCA mutation who underwent RRM between January 2010 and November 2023 were included in this study.Among patients who underwent contralateral RRM, those with a primary cancer diagnosis were included, and those with occult malignancy on the contralateral RRM side were reviewed additionally. The demographics and pathologies of both primary breast cancer and occult malignancies were evaluated. Results: In our institution, 925 patients were identified as BRCA mutation carriers, and 320 patients underwent contralateral RRM along with primary breast cancer surgery. BRCA2 mutation occurred more frequently (54.8%) in the overall BRCA mutation cohort. Furthermore, we reviewed 320 patients diagnosed with breast cancer and detected as BRCA mutation carriers who underwent contralateral RRM; high proportion of them were BRCA1 mutation carriers.Interestingly, we found a low incidence of only seven patients (2.2%) with occult malignancy on contralateral RRM side, which is different from that reported in other nations. Conclusion The incidence of occult malignancy in the contralateral breast of breast cancer patients with breast cancer with BRCA mutation is significantly low, and may be influenced by several factors. Increased utilization of screening and advancements in diagnostic technologies in South Korea have reduced the chance of occult malignancy in RRM, and a variety of pathologic examination methods may affect the rate of incidence.

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 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: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.