Background: With growing elderly populations, management of patients with acute stroke is increasingly important. In South Korea, the Acute Stroke Quality Assessment Program (ASQAP) has contributed to improving the quality of stroke care and practice behavior in healthcare institutions. While the mortality of hemorrhagic stroke remains high, there are only a few assessment indices associated with hemorrhagic stroke. Considering the need to develop assessment indices to improve the actual quality of care in the field of acute stroke treatment, this study aims to investigate the current status of human resources and practices related to the treatment of patients with acute stroke through a nationwide survey. Methods: For the healthcare institutions included in the Ninth ASQAP of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA), data from January 2022 to December 2022 were collected through a survey on the current status and practice of healthcare providers related to the treatment of patients with acute stroke. The questionnaire consisted of 19 items, including six items on healthcare providers involved in stroke care and 10 items on the care of patients with acute stroke. Results: In the treatment of patients with hemorrhagic stroke among patients with acute stroke, neurosurgeons were the most common providers. The contribution of neurosurgeons in the treatment of ischemic stroke has also been found to be equivalent to that of neurologists. However, a number of institutions were found to be devoid of healthcare providers who perform definitive treatments, such as intra-arterial thrombectomy for patients with ischemic stroke or cerebral aneurysm clipping for subarachnoid hemorrhage. The intensity of the workload of healthcare providers involved in the care of patients with acute stroke, especially those involved in definitive treatment, was also found to be quite high. Conclusion Currently, there are almost no assessment indices specific to hemorrhagic stroke in the ASQAP for acute stroke. Furthermore, it does not reflect the reality of the healthcare providers and practices that provide definitive treatment for acute stroke. The findings of this study suggest the need for the development of appropriate assessment indices that reflect the realities of acute stroke care.

Purpose: Surgical resection is the primary curative treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer; however, it is associated with high postoperative complication rates and impaired recovery. Frailty, malnutrition, and sarcopenia increase morbidity and mortality, underscoring the need for perioperative rehabilitation programs. Standardized rehabilitation protocols during the perioperative period are currently lacking in Korea. We aimed to develop an evidence-based rehabilitation protocol for GI cancer patients to enhance postoperative outcomes and facilitate clinical implementation. Methods: A multidisciplinary task force team comprising experts in surgery, clinical nutrition, and rehabilitation medicine conducted a systematic literature search and comprehensive review from 2012 to 2022 to develop a standardized pre- and re-habilitation protocol for GI cancer surgery. The protocol underwent external validation and subsequent refinements before being finalized through expert consensus. Results: The protocol development process was organized into four consecutive phases: keyword selection, literature review and case report form development, initial protocol drafting, and external validation leading to the final version of the protocol. The final version of the rehabilitation protocol is presented in the main text and included as Supplements. Conclusion This protocol provides a standardized clinical guideline based on the latest evidence-based pre- and re-habilitation strategies and is designed for seamless integration into routine clinical practice. By facilitating proactive rehabilitation interventions, it aims to improve outcomes in GI cancer patients who are at high risk of postoperative complications, functional decline, and malnutrition.

Background: With growing elderly populations, management of patients with acute stroke is increasingly important. In South Korea, the Acute Stroke Quality Assessment Program (ASQAP) has contributed to improving the quality of stroke care and practice behavior in healthcare institutions. While the mortality of hemorrhagic stroke remains high, there are only a few assessment indices associated with hemorrhagic stroke. Considering the need to develop assessment indices to improve the actual quality of care in the field of acute stroke treatment, this study aims to investigate the current status of human resources and practices related to the treatment of patients with acute stroke through a nationwide survey. Methods: For the healthcare institutions included in the Ninth ASQAP of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA), data from January 2022 to December 2022 were collected through a survey on the current status and practice of healthcare providers related to the treatment of patients with acute stroke. The questionnaire consisted of 19 items, including six items on healthcare providers involved in stroke care and 10 items on the care of patients with acute stroke. Results: In the treatment of patients with hemorrhagic stroke among patients with acute stroke, neurosurgeons were the most common providers. The contribution of neurosurgeons in the treatment of ischemic stroke has also been found to be equivalent to that of neurologists. However, a number of institutions were found to be devoid of healthcare providers who perform definitive treatments, such as intra-arterial thrombectomy for patients with ischemic stroke or cerebral aneurysm clipping for subarachnoid hemorrhage. The intensity of the workload of healthcare providers involved in the care of patients with acute stroke, especially those involved in definitive treatment, was also found to be quite high. Conclusion Currently, there are almost no assessment indices specific to hemorrhagic stroke in the ASQAP for acute stroke. Furthermore, it does not reflect the reality of the healthcare providers and practices that provide definitive treatment for acute stroke. The findings of this study suggest the need for the development of appropriate assessment indices that reflect the realities of acute stroke care.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Purpose: Surgical resection is the primary curative treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer; however, it is associated with high postoperative complication rates and impaired recovery. Frailty, malnutrition, and sarcopenia increase morbidity and mortality, underscoring the need for perioperative rehabilitation programs. Standardized rehabilitation protocols during the perioperative period are currently lacking in Korea. We aimed to develop an evidence-based rehabilitation protocol for GI cancer patients to enhance postoperative outcomes and facilitate clinical implementation. Methods: A multidisciplinary task force team comprising experts in surgery, clinical nutrition, and rehabilitation medicine conducted a systematic literature search and comprehensive review from 2012 to 2022 to develop a standardized pre- and re-habilitation protocol for GI cancer surgery. The protocol underwent external validation and subsequent refinements before being finalized through expert consensus. Results: The protocol development process was organized into four consecutive phases: keyword selection, literature review and case report form development, initial protocol drafting, and external validation leading to the final version of the protocol. The final version of the rehabilitation protocol is presented in the main text and included as Supplements. Conclusion This protocol provides a standardized clinical guideline based on the latest evidence-based pre- and re-habilitation strategies and is designed for seamless integration into routine clinical practice. By facilitating proactive rehabilitation interventions, it aims to improve outcomes in GI cancer patients who are at high risk of postoperative complications, functional decline, and malnutrition.

Purpose: Surgical resection is the primary curative treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer; however, it is associated with high postoperative complication rates and impaired recovery. Frailty, malnutrition, and sarcopenia increase morbidity and mortality, underscoring the need for perioperative rehabilitation programs. Standardized rehabilitation protocols during the perioperative period are currently lacking in Korea. We aimed to develop an evidence-based rehabilitation protocol for GI cancer patients to enhance postoperative outcomes and facilitate clinical implementation. Methods: A multidisciplinary task force team comprising experts in surgery, clinical nutrition, and rehabilitation medicine conducted a systematic literature search and comprehensive review from 2012 to 2022 to develop a standardized pre- and re-habilitation protocol for GI cancer surgery. The protocol underwent external validation and subsequent refinements before being finalized through expert consensus. Results: The protocol development process was organized into four consecutive phases: keyword selection, literature review and case report form development, initial protocol drafting, and external validation leading to the final version of the protocol. The final version of the rehabilitation protocol is presented in the main text and included as Supplements. Conclusion This protocol provides a standardized clinical guideline based on the latest evidence-based pre- and re-habilitation strategies and is designed for seamless integration into routine clinical practice. By facilitating proactive rehabilitation interventions, it aims to improve outcomes in GI cancer patients who are at high risk of postoperative complications, functional decline, and malnutrition.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background: With growing elderly populations, management of patients with acute stroke is increasingly important. In South Korea, the Acute Stroke Quality Assessment Program (ASQAP) has contributed to improving the quality of stroke care and practice behavior in healthcare institutions. While the mortality of hemorrhagic stroke remains high, there are only a few assessment indices associated with hemorrhagic stroke. Considering the need to develop assessment indices to improve the actual quality of care in the field of acute stroke treatment, this study aims to investigate the current status of human resources and practices related to the treatment of patients with acute stroke through a nationwide survey. Methods: For the healthcare institutions included in the Ninth ASQAP of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA), data from January 2022 to December 2022 were collected through a survey on the current status and practice of healthcare providers related to the treatment of patients with acute stroke. The questionnaire consisted of 19 items, including six items on healthcare providers involved in stroke care and 10 items on the care of patients with acute stroke. Results: In the treatment of patients with hemorrhagic stroke among patients with acute stroke, neurosurgeons were the most common providers. The contribution of neurosurgeons in the treatment of ischemic stroke has also been found to be equivalent to that of neurologists. However, a number of institutions were found to be devoid of healthcare providers who perform definitive treatments, such as intra-arterial thrombectomy for patients with ischemic stroke or cerebral aneurysm clipping for subarachnoid hemorrhage. The intensity of the workload of healthcare providers involved in the care of patients with acute stroke, especially those involved in definitive treatment, was also found to be quite high. Conclusion Currently, there are almost no assessment indices specific to hemorrhagic stroke in the ASQAP for acute stroke. Furthermore, it does not reflect the reality of the healthcare providers and practices that provide definitive treatment for acute stroke. The findings of this study suggest the need for the development of appropriate assessment indices that reflect the realities of acute stroke care.

Purpose: Surgical resection is the primary curative treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer; however, it is associated with high postoperative complication rates and impaired recovery. Frailty, malnutrition, and sarcopenia increase morbidity and mortality, underscoring the need for perioperative rehabilitation programs. Standardized rehabilitation protocols during the perioperative period are currently lacking in Korea. We aimed to develop an evidence-based rehabilitation protocol for GI cancer patients to enhance postoperative outcomes and facilitate clinical implementation. Methods: A multidisciplinary task force team comprising experts in surgery, clinical nutrition, and rehabilitation medicine conducted a systematic literature search and comprehensive review from 2012 to 2022 to develop a standardized pre- and re-habilitation protocol for GI cancer surgery. The protocol underwent external validation and subsequent refinements before being finalized through expert consensus. Results: The protocol development process was organized into four consecutive phases: keyword selection, literature review and case report form development, initial protocol drafting, and external validation leading to the final version of the protocol. The final version of the rehabilitation protocol is presented in the main text and included as Supplements. Conclusion This protocol provides a standardized clinical guideline based on the latest evidence-based pre- and re-habilitation strategies and is designed for seamless integration into routine clinical practice. By facilitating proactive rehabilitation interventions, it aims to improve outcomes in GI cancer patients who are at high risk of postoperative complications, functional decline, and malnutrition.