Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Objective: It has been 1 year since the start of the worldwide coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study analyzed the indirect effects of COVID-19 on treating patients with non-infectious diseases by comparing the incidence of complicated appendicitis before and after the pandemic. Methods: The target group included patients aged at least 16 years diagnosed with acute appendicitis between February 23 and July 31, 2020. Patients diagnosed during the same period in 2019 were selected as the control group. The differences in the incidence of complicated appendicitis before and after COVID-19 were investigated, and the association with various variables was analyzed using the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The study included 120 subjects in 2019 (pre-COVID group) and 119 cases in 2020 (post-COVID group). The pre-COVID group included 25 cases (20.8%) of complicated appendicitis, while the post-COVID group included 48 cases (40.3%). The median time from symptom onset to visit (pre-hospital time) increased from 15 to 22 hours, and the median time from the visit to surgery (in-hospital time) increased from 7 to 11 hours. Multivariate regression analysis of the three variables revealed odds ratios (95% CIs) of pre-hospital time, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and inclusion in the post-COVID group of 1.02 (1.01-1.02), 2.07 (1.11-3.86), and 2.15 (1.12-4.11), respectively. Conclusion The incidence of complicated appendicitis increased after the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, a healthcare system that can minimize the delay in treating non-infectious emergency patients is needed.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Objective: It has been 1 year since the start of the worldwide coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study analyzed the indirect effects of COVID-19 on treating patients with non-infectious diseases by comparing the incidence of complicated appendicitis before and after the pandemic. Methods: The target group included patients aged at least 16 years diagnosed with acute appendicitis between February 23 and July 31, 2020. Patients diagnosed during the same period in 2019 were selected as the control group. The differences in the incidence of complicated appendicitis before and after COVID-19 were investigated, and the association with various variables was analyzed using the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The study included 120 subjects in 2019 (pre-COVID group) and 119 cases in 2020 (post-COVID group). The pre-COVID group included 25 cases (20.8%) of complicated appendicitis, while the post-COVID group included 48 cases (40.3%). The median time from symptom onset to visit (pre-hospital time) increased from 15 to 22 hours, and the median time from the visit to surgery (in-hospital time) increased from 7 to 11 hours. Multivariate regression analysis of the three variables revealed odds ratios (95% CIs) of pre-hospital time, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and inclusion in the post-COVID group of 1.02 (1.01-1.02), 2.07 (1.11-3.86), and 2.15 (1.12-4.11), respectively. Conclusion The incidence of complicated appendicitis increased after the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, a healthcare system that can minimize the delay in treating non-infectious emergency patients is needed.

Objective: It has been 1 year since the start of the worldwide coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study analyzed the indirect effects of COVID-19 on treating patients with non-infectious diseases by comparing the incidence of complicated appendicitis before and after the pandemic. Methods: The target group included patients aged at least 16 years diagnosed with acute appendicitis between February 23 and July 31, 2020. Patients diagnosed during the same period in 2019 were selected as the control group. The differences in the incidence of complicated appendicitis before and after COVID-19 were investigated, and the association with various variables was analyzed using the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The study included 120 subjects in 2019 (pre-COVID group) and 119 cases in 2020 (post-COVID group). The pre-COVID group included 25 cases (20.8%) of complicated appendicitis, while the post-COVID group included 48 cases (40.3%). The median time from symptom onset to visit (pre-hospital time) increased from 15 to 22 hours, and the median time from the visit to surgery (in-hospital time) increased from 7 to 11 hours. Multivariate regression analysis of the three variables revealed odds ratios (95% CIs) of pre-hospital time, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and inclusion in the post-COVID group of 1.02 (1.01-1.02), 2.07 (1.11-3.86), and 2.15 (1.12-4.11), respectively. Conclusion The incidence of complicated appendicitis increased after the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, a healthcare system that can minimize the delay in treating non-infectious emergency patients is needed.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Hypertension is a major cardiovascular risk factor in hemodialysis patients. This study identified the optimal blood pressure (BP) target for Korean hemodialysis patients using the Korean Renal Dialysis System (KORDS) dataset from the Korean Society of Nephrology and a pooled analysis for previous studies. Methods: Hemodialysis patients were classified according to their systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) at intervals of 20 and 10 mmHg, respectively. As a primary and secondary outcome, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were evaluated. Subsequently, pooled analysis with previous literatures was performed. Results: Among 70,607 patients, 13,708 (19.4%) died in 2,426 days (interquartile range, 1,256–4,075 days). Mean SBP and DBP were 143.0 ± 19.6 and 78.5 ± 12.0 mmHg. In multivariable Cox regression, the patients with SBP of <120 and ≥180 mmHg showed 1.10- and 1.12-times increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to SBP of 120–140 mmHg. Meanwhile, DBP showed no significant association. In subgroup analysis, patients aged <70 years and without diabetes had a U-shaped SBP-mortality association. Cardiovascular mortality was increased in SBP of ≥160 mmHg compared to 120–140 mmHg, but it was not in <120 mmHg. Pooled analysis with previous studies mostly showed elevated risk in SBP of <120 mmHg, but the risks in 140–160 and 160–180 mmHg were not consistent. Conclusion: Extremely lowering BP (<120 mmHg) or uncontrolled hypertension (≥160 mmHg) should be avoided to optimize survival in Korean hemodialysis patients. Detailed analysis for patients with SBP of 120–160 mmHg should be studied further under uniform BP measurement, along with consideration of risk of intradialytic hypotension. Tailored recommendations regarding patient risk factors also should be considered.

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.