Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is essential in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), but without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), a repeat EUS-FNA/B is crucial for clarifying an inconclusive diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate factors associated with improved diagnostic performance of repeat EUS-FNA/B for initially inconclusive SPL diagnoses without ROSE. Methods: Of 5,894 patients subjected to EUS-FNA/B, 237 (4.0%) with an initially inconclusive diagnosis of SPLs were retrospectively enrolled from five tertiary medical centers between January 2016 and June 2021. Diagnostic performance and procedural factors of EUS-FNA/B were analyzed. Results: The diagnostic accuracies of first and repeat EUS-FNA/B were 96.2% and 67.6%, respectively. Of 237 patients with an inconclusive diagnosis from initial EUS-FNA/B, 150were pathologically diagnosed after repeat EUS-FNA/B. In multivariate analysis of repeat EUS-FNA/B, tumor location (body/tail vs head: odds ratio [OR], 3.74; 95% confidence inter-val [CI], 1.48 to 9.46), number of needle passes (≥4 vs ≤3: OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.44 to 15.99),needle type (FNB vs FNA: OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.44 to 7.36), needle size (22 gauge vs 19/20 gauge: OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.62), and suction method (suction vs others: OR, 5.19;95% CI, 1.30 to 20.75) were associated with a significantly improved diagnostic performance. Conclusions Repeat EUS-FNA/B is essential for patients with an inconclusive EUS-FNA/B without ROSE. To improve the diagnostic performance of repeated EUS-FNA/B, it is recom-mended that 22-gauge FNB needles, ≥4 needle passes, and suction methods are used.

Background/Aims: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common gastrointestinal disease associated with hospitalization. With the increase in its incidence, AP has become a greater burden on healthcare resources. Early identification of patients with mild AP can facilitate the appropriate use of resources. We aimed to investigate the ability of inflammatory markers, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as various scoring systems to differentiate mild AP from more severe diseases. Methods: We retrospectively investigated patients hospitalized with AP, for whom severity assessment and clinical course confirmation were possible. Inflammatory markers were measured at admission, and CRP levels were measured 24 hours after admission (CRP2). Predictive values were calculated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and logistic regression model analysis. Results: Of 103 patients with AP, 42 (40.8%) were diagnosed with mild AP according to the revised Atlanta classification. Based on the AUROC, IL-6 (0.755, p<0.001), CRP2 (0.787, p<0.001), and computed tomography severity index (CTSI) (0.851, p<0.001) were useful predictors of mild AP. With standard cutoff values, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83.3%, 62.3%, and 70.9% for IL-6 (<50 pg/mL), and 78.6%, 63.9%, and 69.9% for CRP2 (<50 mg/L), respectively. The AUROC of IL-6 and CRP2 were significantly higher than those of other inflammatory markers and were not significantly different from that of CTSI. Conclusions IL-6, CRP2, and CTSI are helpful for early differentiation of AP severity. Among inflammatory markers, IL-6 has the advantage of early prediction of mild pancreatitis at the time of admission.

Background/Aims: The use of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is recommended for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Stent-related adverse events might differ according to the position of the stent through the ampulla of Vater (AOV). We retrospectively evaluated SEMS patency and adverse events according to the position of the SEMS. Methods: In total, 280 patients who underwent endoscopic SEMS placement due to malignant distal biliary obstruction were analyzed retrospectively. Suprapapillary and transpapillary SEMS insertions were performed on 51 patients and 229 patients, respectively. Results: Between the suprapapillary group (SPG) and transpapillary group (TPG), the stent patency period was not significantly different (median [95% confidence interval]: 107 days [82.3 to 131.7] vs 120 days [99.3 to 140.7], p=0.559). There was also no significant difference in the rate of adverse events. In subgroup analysis, the stent patency for an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV was found to be significantly shorter than that for an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV in the SPG (64 days [0 to 160.4] vs 127 days [82.0 to 171.9], p<0.001) and TPG (87 days [52.5 to 121.5] vs 130 [97.0 to 162.9], p<0.001). Patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV in both groups had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion (SPG: 40.0% vs 4.9%, p=0.002; TPG: 28.6% vs 2.9%, p<0.001) than patients with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV. Conclusions The SPG and TPG showed similar results in terms of stent patency and rate of adverse events. However, patients with an MBO located within 2 cm from the AOV had a higher percentage of duodenal invasion with shorter stent patency than those with an MBO located more than 2 cm from the AOV, regardless of stent position.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.