1.Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Firstand Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Single-Vessel Disease: 10-Year Follow-Up Results From a Korean Single-Center Registry
Jae Kyeong BYUN ; Se Yeon CHOI ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Byoung Geol CHOI ; Jinah CHA ; Su Jin HYUN ; You Jin LEE ; Manda Satria CHESARIO ; Melly SUSANTI ; Soohyung PARK ; Eun Jin PARK ; Dong Oh KANG ; Cheol Ung CHOI ; Chang Gyu PARK ; Dong Joo OH
Journal of Cardiovascular Intervention 2026;5(1):49-59
Background:
There are limited long-term clinical outcome data comparing first-generation (1G) versus second-generation (2G) drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with single-vessel disease (SVD). We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of 1G- and 2G-DES in SVD patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over 10 years of clinical follow-up.
Methods:
A total of 2,312 consecutive patients with SVD who underwent PCI with 1G-DES (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents, n = 811) or 2G-DES (zotarolimus [Endeavor, Endeavor Resolute]- or everolimus-eluting stents [Promus Element, Xience], n = 1,082) were enrolled.After propensity score matching, 2 matched groups (538 pairs) were generated. Study endpoints included individual and composite clinical outcomes through 10 years.
Results:
During the 10-year follow-up, the 2G-DES group had lower incidences of myocardial infarction (MI; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.92; P = 0.028) and target lesion revascularization (TLR; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32–0.91; P = 0.021) than the 1G-DES group. Rates of total death, cardiac death, non-target vessel revascularization, stroke, major adverse cardiac events, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between groups.
Conclusions
In our single-center, all-comer registry, 2G-DES were associated with lower incidence rates of MI and TLR compared to 1G-DES in SVD patients over 10 years of followup, indicating a safer and more durable effect than 1G-DES.
2.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
3.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
4.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
5.Role of serum magnesium in post-aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhagic hydrocephalus
Moinay KIM ; Hyunchul JUNG ; Seung Bin KIM ; Jun Ha HWANG ; Hanwool JEON ; Yeongu CHUNG ; Youngbo SHIM ; Jae Hyun KIM ; Joonho BYUN ; Aiden COUSINS ; Wonhyoung PARK ; Jung Cheol PARK ; Jae Sung AHN ; Seungjoo LEE
Acute and Critical Care 2025;40(4):582-593
Background:
Post-hemorrhagic hydrocephalus (PHH) is a frequent complication of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), yet the relationship between serum magnesium (Mg) level and PHH remains unclear. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study to specifically examine the association between admission serum Mg level and PHH in aSAH patients.
Methods:
In this prospective, multicenter study (October 2019–October 2024), 131 patients with confirmed aSAH were enrolled from four neuro-intensive care units. Patients were stratified by admission serum Mg level as <2.2 mg/dL or ≥2.2 mg/dL. The primary outcome was PHH incidence; secondary outcomes were cerebral vasospasm (CV), delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), and 30-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score.
Results:
Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Serum Mg ≥2.2 mg/dL was not significantly associated with reduced vasospasm, DCI, or poor functional outcome. However, serum Mg >2.5 mg/dL correlated with lower PHH incidence in univariate analysis (odds ratio, 0.36; P=0.027) but not in multivariate analysis (P=0.136). Independent predictors of PHH were posterior circulation aneurysm, high Fisher grade, and high Hunt and Hess grade. Poor 30-day mRS was independently associated with high Fisher and Hunt and Hess grades.
Conclusions
Admission serum Mg level was not independently associated with PHH, although a potential protective trend was noted at higher levels (>2.5 mg/dL). These findings suggest a possible role of Mg in PHH prevention. Further prospective trials are warranted to clarify the therapeutic potential of Mg and to establish optimal monitoring and correction strategies in aSAH management.
6.Early Midterm Results of Laser Assisted Sclerotherapy
Jin Won JUN ; Ji Ran JANG ; Yong Beom BAK ; Seung Jae BYUN
Annals of phlebology 2024;22(1):27-31
Objective:
This study aims to evaluate the effect of treatment for great saphenous vein incompetence with a fourth-generation 1940 nm laser with radial fiber and catheter directed foam sclerotherapy (CDFS) without a tumescent simultaneously. The procedure was termed laser assisted sclerotherapy (LAST). It is a kind of thermochemical ablation.
Methods:
From January 1 to June 30, 2023, 86 GSV cases from 50 patients who underwent LAST at Cheongmac hospital were enrolled in this retrospective study. Endogenous laser ablation (EVLA) was performed in the order of accessary vein, tributaries and truncal vein and then followed by CDFS which was performed with a 3% sodium tetradecyl sulfate (STS) mixed with CO 2 gas at a ratio of 1:4. The degree of pain was measured after procedure at 2 hours after the procedure. Follow-up was conducted at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months.
Results:
Three of the 86 GSV observed for >6 months showed mild reflux. According to size and number of ablated vessels, various energy level was needed. Three percent STS was used 4.5±0.4 cc and operation time per GSV was about 8±2 minutes. The VAS score was 2.5±0.6 at 2 hours after surgery. The closure rate was 100% at 6 months. Symptoms improved after 6 months in all patients (6.2±1.2 to 0.9±0.2).
Conclusion
LAST showed a good closure rate in the early midterm follow up period. Ablation was possible with less energy compared with EVLA and the pain index was lower at the second hour after procedure.
7.One-year Outcomes of Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty Combined with Cataract Surgery in the Korean Population
Minjeong Ashley KOO ; Hye Yeon YOON ; Jae Hyun PARK ; So-Hyang CHUNG ; Hyun‐Seung KIM ; Yong-Soo BYUN
Korean Journal of Ophthalmology 2024;38(2):105-112
Purpose:
To evaluate the refractive outcomes after ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) combined with phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation (triple procedure) in the South Korean population.
Methods:
This retrospective observational study included 37 eyes of 36 patients who underwent the UT-DSAEK triple procedure between 2012 and 2021 in a single tertiary hospital. Preoperative and postoperative refractive outcomes and endothelial parameters at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were observed.
Results:
At the final postoperative 12-month period, the average best-corrected visual acuity was 0.4 ± 0.5 in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution. The mean endothelial cell density at 12 months was 1,841.92 ± 731.24 cells/mm2, indicating no significant endothelial cell loss compared to the baseline (p = 0.128). The mean postoperative central corneal thickness at 12 months was 597.41 ± 86.26 μm. The postoperative mean absolute error at 12 months was 0.96 ± 0.89 diopters (D) and mean error was 0.89 ± 0.97 D.
Conclusions
The results of our South Korean cohort study on UT-DSAEK triple surgery showed favorable and safe outcomes. Regardless of graft thickness, it should be noted that a hyperopic shift of 1.00 to 2.00 D needs to be considered in the case of UT-DSAEK triple surgery.
8.Categorization of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction Using Lipid Layer Thickness and Meibomian Gland Dropout in Dry Eye Patients: A Retrospective Study
Phil Kyu LEE ; Jae Lim CHUNG ; Da Ran KIM ; Young Chae YOON ; SoonWon YANG ; Woong-Joo WHANG ; Yong-Soo BYUN ; HyungBin HWANG ; Kyung Sun NA ; HyunSoo LEE ; So Hyang CHUNG ; Eun Chul KIM ; YangKyung CHO ; Hyun Seung KIM ; Ho Sik HWANG
Korean Journal of Ophthalmology 2024;38(1):64-70
Purpose:
In the present study, we determined the prevalence of obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD), hyposecretory MGD, grossly normal MG, and hypersecretory MGD in patients with dry eye syndrome using lipid layer thickness (LLT) and MG dropout.
Methods:
Eighty-eight patients with dry eye syndrome were included in the study. Patients were categorized into four groups according to the LLT and weighted total meiboscore. The proportion of patients in each group was calculated. The age, sex, Ocular Surface Disease Index, LLT, Schirmer, tear film breakup time, cornea stain, weighted total meiboscore, expressibility, and quality of meibum were compared between the four groups.
Results:
Fifteen eyes (17.0%) had obstructive MGD, two eyes (2.3%) had hyposecretory MGD, 40 eyes (45.5%) had grossly normal MG, and 17 eyes (19.3%) had hypersecretory MGD. The obstructive MGD group was younger than the grossly normal MG group. In obstructive MGD, the ratio of men to women was higher than that of the other groups. However, Ocular Surface Disease Index, Schirmer, tear film breakup time, and corneal stain did not show statistically significant differences between the four groups. The meibum expressibility of the hyposecretoy MGD group was worse than those of the other groups. The meibum expressibility of the hyposecretoy MGD group was poor than those of the obstructive and hypersecretory MGD group.
Conclusions
This categorization was expected to help determine the best treatment method for dry eye syndrome, according to the MG status.
9.Predicting Recurrence-Free Survival After Upfront Surgery in Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Preoperative Risk Score Based on CA 19-9, CT, and 18F-FDG PET/CT
Boryeong JEONG ; Minyoung OH ; Seung Soo LEE ; Nayoung KIM ; Jae Seung KIM ; Woohyung LEE ; Song Cheol KIM ; Hyoung Jung KIM ; Jin Hee KIM ; Jae Ho BYUN
Korean Journal of Radiology 2024;25(7):644-655
Objective:
To develop and validate a preoperative risk score incorporating carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, CT, and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18F-FDG) PET/CT variables to predict recurrence-free survival (RFS) after upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
Materials and Methods:
Patients with resectable PDAC who underwent upfront surgery between 2014 and 2017 (development set) or between 2018 and 2019 (test set) were retrospectively evaluated. In the development set, a risk-scoring system was developed using the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, including variables associated with RFS. In the test set, the performance of the risk score was evaluated using the Harrell C-index and compared with that of the postoperative pathological tumor stage.
Results:
A total of 529 patients, including 335 (198 male; mean age ± standard deviation, 64 ± 9 years) and 194 (103 male; mean age, 66 ± 9 years) patients in the development and test sets, respectively, were evaluated. The risk score included five variables predicting RFS: tumor size (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29 per 1 cm increment; P < 0.001), maximal standardized uptake values of tumor ≥ 5.2 (HR, 1.29; P = 0.06), suspicious regional lymph nodes (HR, 1.43; P = 0.02), possible distant metastasis on 18F-FDG PET/CT (HR, 2.32; P = 0.03), and CA 19-9 (HR, 1.02 per 100 U/mL increment; P = 0.002). In the test set, the risk score showed good performance in predicting RFS (C-index, 0.61), similar to that of the pathologic tumor stage (C-index, 0.64; P = 0.17).
Conclusion
The proposed risk score based on preoperative CA 19-9, CT, and 18F-FDG PET/CT variables may have clinical utility in selecting high-risk patients with resectable PDAC.
10.Incidence of bactibilia and related factors in patients who undergo cholecystectomy
Do Kyoon MOON ; Jae Seung KANG ; Yoonhyeong BYUN ; Yoo Jin CHOI ; Hae Won LEE ; Jin-Young JANG ; Chang-Sup LIM
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2023;104(1):10-17
Purpose:
In general, bile is normally sterile. However, there are reports bactibilia may occur in certain instances, though the causal factors are unclear. We analyzed possible preoperative predictors of bactibilia upon cholecystectomy.
Methods:
Bile samples were collected during cholecystectomies from November 2018 to November 2019. A total of 428 open or laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared between the culture-positive and culture-negative groups.
Results:
One hundred fifty-seven patients (36.7%) were culture-positive. Gram-negative bacteria (95 [61.0%]) were more common. Escherichia coli (38 [40.0%]) and Enterobacter (22 [23.2%]) were the most common species. In univariate analysis, age of ≥70 years (P < 0.001), male sex (P < 0.001), high American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status grades (P = 0.001), diabetes mellitus (P = 0.002), jaundice (P = 0.007), high Tokyo Guideline grades (P = 0.008), percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD; P < 0.001), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP; P < 0.001) were identified as a risk factors for bactibilia. In multivariate analysis, age of ≥70 years (hazard ratio [HR], 2.874; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.769–4.670; P = 0.001), ERCP (HR, 9.001; 95% CI, 4.833–16.75; P < 0.001), and PTGBD (HR, 2.866; 95% CI, 1.440–4.901; P = 0.002) were independent risk factors for bactibilia.
Conclusion
Among patients who underwent cholecystectomy, those who were elderly, symptomatic, and underwent preoperative drainage were more likely to have bactibilia. In such cases, surgeons should take care to prevent bile leakage during surgery and consider administering appropriate antibiotics.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail