The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclusively. If fewer than two RCTs were available, studies using propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

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.

Objective: We aimed to ascertain the occurrence and characteristics of CRE isolated from companion animals, dogs and cats. Methods: E. coli strains were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility using the broth microdilution technique. Antimicrobial resistance genes were detected by polymerase chain reaction and sequencing analysis. The molecular characteristics of CRE were determined using multi-locus sequence typing, replicon typing, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Results: In total, 13 CRE isolates (0.13%) were identified from dogs possessing blaNDM-5 along with β-lactamase genes, mostly blaCMY-2 (92.2%) and blaTEM-1 (53.8%). The commonly observed mutations were S83L and D87N in gyrA, S80I in parC, and S458A in parE. CRE carried nonbeta-lactam resistance genes, with the majority being tet(B) (100%), sul (84.6%), and aac(3)-II (53.8%). Nine different PFGE patterns (P1–P9), IncX3-type plasmids (69.2%), and ST410 (84.6%) were predominantly detected. Conclusions and Relevance: This investigation provides significant insight into the prevalence and molecular characteristics of blaNDM-5 -carrying E. coli in dogs. The co-existence of blaNDM-5 and other antimicrobial resistance genes in E. coli potentially poses severe health hazards to humans.

Background/Aims: The ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) response score (URS) was developed to identify poor responders to UDCA before treatment, in order to offer timely and proactive intervention. However, validation of the URS in Asian population is warranted. Methods: A total of 173 Asian patients diagnosed with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) between 2007 and 2016 at seven academic institutions in Korea who started UDCA treatment were analyzed to validate the performance of URS. UDCA response was defined as an alkaline phosphatase level less than 1.67 times the upper limit of normal after 1-year of UDCA treatment. In addition, prognostic performance of URS for liver-related events, defined as newly developed hepatic decompensation or hepatocellular carcinoma was evaluated. Results: After 1 year of UDCA treatment, 133 patients (76.9%) achieved UDCA response. UDCAresponse rate was 98.7% for those with URS ≥1.41 (n=76) and 58.8% for those with URS <1.41(n=97). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of URS in predicting UDCAresponse was 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.88). During a median follow-up of 6.5years, liver-related events developed in 18 patients (10.4%). Among 117 patients with PBC stage I-III by histological evaluation, the 5-year liver-related event-free survival rate differed accordingto the URS; 100% for URS ≥1.41 and 86.5% for URS <1.41 (p=0.005). Conclusions URS demonstrated good performance in predicting a UDCA treatment response in Asian PBC patients. In addition, the risk of liver-related events differed according to the URS for the PBC stage. Thus, URS can be used to predict the response and clinical outcome in patients with PBC.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to investigate whether pretransplant frailty can predict postoperative morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation (LT) in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 242 patients who underwent LT between 2018 and 2020 at a tertiary hospital in Korea. Results: Among them, 189 patients (78.1%) received LT from a living donor. Physical frailty at baseline was assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), by which patientswere categorized into two groups: frail (SPPB <10) and non-frail (SPPB ≥10). Among the whole cohort (age, 55.0±9.2 years; male, 165 [68.2%]), 182 patients were classified as non-frail and 60 patients were classified as frail. Posttransplant survival was shorter in the frail group than the non-frail group (9.3 months vs 11.6 months). Postoperative intensive care unit stay was longer in the frail group than in the non-frail group (median, 6 days vs 4 days), and the 30-day complication rate was higher in the frail group than in the non-frail group (78.3% vs 59.3%). Frailty was an independent risk factor for posttransplant mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 5.57). In subgroup analysis, frail patients showed lower posttransplant survival regardless of history of hepatocellular carcinoma and donor type. Conclusions Assessment of pretransplant frailty, as measured by SPPB, provides important prognostic information for clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients undergoing LT.