Background: and Purpose Intraoperative visual evoked potential (VEP) monitoring has been studied mainly in pituitary adenoma, while its role in nonpituitary suprasellar tumors has remained unclear. This study evaluated the predictive usefulness of intraoperative VEP monitoring during endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) and aimed to identify optimal alarm criteria for visual outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 87 patients who underwent EES with intraoperative VEP monitoring between April 2021 and September 2023. Visual outcomes were evaluated preoperatively and at short-term (≤3 months) and long-term (12 months) followups, with visual deterioration at these time points defined as worsening of either visual acuity or the visual field. Reductions in the VEP amplitude were quantified using both the maximum intraoperative decrease and the final amplitude after recovery. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to identify the optimal alarm thresholds, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for short-term and long-term visual deteriorations. Results: Short-term and long-term visual deteriorations were detected in 12 (9.2%) and 5 (3.8%) of the 130 analyzed eyes, respectively. ROC curve analyses identified ≥40% and ≥30% reductions in the N75–P100 amplitude as optimal alarm criteria for short-term and long-term visual deteriorations, respectively. A 30% reduction without intraoperative recovery demonstrated markedly higher sensitivity than the conventional 50% alarm threshold for short-term (58.3% vs. 33.3%) and long-term (80.0% vs. 20.0%) outcomes, while maintaining acceptable specificity (82.2% and 80.8%, respectively). Conclusions A 30% reduction in amplitude represents a more-sensitive and clinically relevant alarm threshold than a 50% reduction for intraoperative VEP monitoring during EES for nonpituitary suprasellar tumors. Incorporating both the magnitude and recovery pattern of VEP amplitude changes may improve the accuracy of predictions of long-term visual deterioration. However, the potential for false positives warrants cautious interpretation, and further studies are needed to validate the impact of intraoperative VEP monitoring on visual outcomes.

Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) has been increasing in recent years, CTO PCI is still one of the most challenging procedures with relatively higher rates of procedural complications and adverse clinical events after PCI. Due to the innate limitations of invasive coronary angiography, intravascular imaging (IVI) has been used as an adjunctive tool to complement PCI, especially in complex coronary artery disease. Considering the complexity of CTO lesions, the role of IVI is particularly important in CTO intervention. IVI has been a useful adjunctive tool in every step of CTO PCI including assisted wire crossing, confirmation of wire location within CTO segment, and stent optimization. The meticulous use of IVI has been one of the greatest contributors to recent progress of CTO PCI. Nevertheless, studies evaluating the role of IVI during CTO PCI are limited. The current review provides a comprehensive overview of the mechanistic advantages of IVI in CTO PCI, summarizes previous studies and trials, and presents future perspective of IVI in CTO PCI.

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.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) following metastasectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Materials and Methods: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized clinical trials evaluating the use of TKIs after metastasectomy in mRCC patients. Study outcomes were relapse-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events of TKIs. Results: Two studies with 197 randomized participants that compared TKIs following metastasectomy versus metastasectomy alone were identified. According to these studies, TKIs following metastasectomy may result in little to no difference in RFS/DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.57; I2=29%; low-certainty evidence). TKIs after metastasectomy may slightly increase OS, but the CI crossed the line of no effect (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.06–9.87; I2=86%; low-certainty evidence). TKIs after metastasectomy likely resulted in a large increase in adverse events (risk ratio, 2.76; 95% CI: 1.65–4.62; I2=not applicable; moderatecertainty evidence). Conclusions TKIs following metastasectomy did not improve RFS/DFS, but slightly improved OS. It is likely that TKIs following metastasectomy increase adverse events compared to surgery only. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate (signaling confidence that the reported effect size is likely close to the true effect) to low (indicating that the true effect may be substantially different from the effect estimate). The findings of this study should help to inform future guidelines and clinical decision-making at the point of care.

Background: Appropriate platelet transfusion is essential for patient blood management and allocating limited healthcare resources. Therefore, this study evaluated the appropriateness of platelet transfusion in two tertiary hospitals. Methods: At Chonnam National University Hospital (Hospital A) and Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital (Hospital B), 1,470 platelet transfusions (299 and 1,171 cases at Hospitals A and B, respectively) during a single month were reviewed retrospectively using the Korean Transfusion Guidelines (5th edition). Results: The most common indications were therapeutic transfusion to ensure hemostasis (54.8%) at Hospital A and to prevent spontaneous bleeding in patients with hematologic/oncologic diseases (65.8%) at Hospital B. Overall, 87.3% and 76.3% of transfusions were appropriate at Hospitals A and B, respectively. According to the different transfusion indications, the therapeutic transfusions were appropriate in more than 80% of cases in both hospitals.The appropriateness of prophylactic transfusions against spontaneous bleeding was 80.7% and 69.3%, respectively, and those before surgery or invasive procedures were 72.0% and 66.2%, respectively. Of the 38 and 278 inappropriate transfusions in Hospitals A and B, respectively (as determined by pre-transfusion platelet counts), most cases had platelet counts between 50 and 100×109 /L in Hospital A (23 cases) and between 20 and 50×109 /L in Hospital B (198 cases). Conclusion The two hospitals differed in terms of transfusion indications, appropriateness, and cases of inappropriateness. The indications and appropriateness of platelet transfusion should be reviewed in real practice on a hospital-by-hospital basis to improve transfusion management.

Background: Although intravenous nefopam has been used for opioid-sparing strategy and pain relief, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown inconsistent findings. Methods: We searched core databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library for RCTs on this research question in December 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Of 708 studies identified from the databases, a total of 17 RCTs (n=1,173 patients) that met the inclusion criteria were included in the final meta-analysis. Overall, the consumption of cumulative opioid analgesics was significantly lower in the nefopam group than the control group, on arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (SMD, −0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.01 to −0.39; I2= 55.1%; n=7), at 24 hours (SMD, −0.65; 95% CI, −1.09 to −0.20; I2=87.4%; n=9), and 48 hours (SMD, −0.82; 95% CI, −1.40 to −0.24; I2=85.6%; n=6) after surgery. It also showed a significant lower pain score, on arrival in the PACU (WMD, −0.80; 95% CI, −1.27 to −0.32; I2=69.6%; n=7) and 24 hours (WMD, −0.48; 95% CI, −0.79 to −0.16; I2=0.0%, n=5). However, publication bias was observed (asymmetrical funnel plot and P for bias=0.005). Conclusions Intravenous nefopam showed an opioid-sparing effect and pain relief in the management of patients with acute postoperative pain.

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.