Background: Aortic valve sclerosis (AVS) shares risk factors with atherosclerosis. However, the relationship between AVS progression with cardiovascular (CV) risk has not been researched. This study investigates CV outcomes according to progression of AVS. Methods: This study included 2,901 patients with AVS (irregular leaflet thickening and peak aortic jet veloc‑ ity < 2 m/sec) who underwent serial echocardiograms at least 1 year apart during 2011–2020. The primary outcome was defined as CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization. Results: During a median follow-up period of 3.9 years, 439 of 2,901 AVS patients (15.1%) progressed to mild or greater aortic stenosis. Patients with progression were older and more likely to have atrial fibrillation than those without. In a stepwise regression, age (odds ratio [OR] per 1-year increase, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01– 1.07), peripheral artery disease (OR, 9.07; 95% CI, 3.12–26.4), and left ventricular mass index (OR per 1-g/m 2 increase, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00–1.02) were associated with AVS progression. Over a median of 6.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 858 of 2,901 patients (29.6%). Patients with progression had higher frequency of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization than those without progression (P < 0.0001). In Cox proportional hazards regres‑ sion, AVS progression (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.10–1.61) was a significant determinant of CV mortality. Conclusions The progression to aortic stenosis in AVS patients is an independent risk factor for CV mortality. These findings suggest that patients with AVS progression may benefit from stricter CV risk monitoring.

Background: Aortic valve sclerosis (AVS) shares risk factors with atherosclerosis. However, the relationship between AVS progression with cardiovascular (CV) risk has not been researched. This study investigates CV outcomes according to progression of AVS. Methods: This study included 2,901 patients with AVS (irregular leaflet thickening and peak aortic jet veloc‑ ity < 2 m/sec) who underwent serial echocardiograms at least 1 year apart during 2011–2020. The primary outcome was defined as CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization. Results: During a median follow-up period of 3.9 years, 439 of 2,901 AVS patients (15.1%) progressed to mild or greater aortic stenosis. Patients with progression were older and more likely to have atrial fibrillation than those without. In a stepwise regression, age (odds ratio [OR] per 1-year increase, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01– 1.07), peripheral artery disease (OR, 9.07; 95% CI, 3.12–26.4), and left ventricular mass index (OR per 1-g/m 2 increase, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00–1.02) were associated with AVS progression. Over a median of 6.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 858 of 2,901 patients (29.6%). Patients with progression had higher frequency of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization than those without progression (P < 0.0001). In Cox proportional hazards regres‑ sion, AVS progression (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.10–1.61) was a significant determinant of CV mortality. Conclusions The progression to aortic stenosis in AVS patients is an independent risk factor for CV mortality. These findings suggest that patients with AVS progression may benefit from stricter CV risk monitoring.

Background: Aortic valve sclerosis (AVS) shares risk factors with atherosclerosis. However, the relationship between AVS progression with cardiovascular (CV) risk has not been researched. This study investigates CV outcomes according to progression of AVS. Methods: This study included 2,901 patients with AVS (irregular leaflet thickening and peak aortic jet veloc‑ ity < 2 m/sec) who underwent serial echocardiograms at least 1 year apart during 2011–2020. The primary outcome was defined as CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization. Results: During a median follow-up period of 3.9 years, 439 of 2,901 AVS patients (15.1%) progressed to mild or greater aortic stenosis. Patients with progression were older and more likely to have atrial fibrillation than those without. In a stepwise regression, age (odds ratio [OR] per 1-year increase, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01– 1.07), peripheral artery disease (OR, 9.07; 95% CI, 3.12–26.4), and left ventricular mass index (OR per 1-g/m 2 increase, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00–1.02) were associated with AVS progression. Over a median of 6.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 858 of 2,901 patients (29.6%). Patients with progression had higher frequency of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization than those without progression (P < 0.0001). In Cox proportional hazards regres‑ sion, AVS progression (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.10–1.61) was a significant determinant of CV mortality. Conclusions The progression to aortic stenosis in AVS patients is an independent risk factor for CV mortality. These findings suggest that patients with AVS progression may benefit from stricter CV risk monitoring.

Background: During the early stages of lymphedema, active physiologic surgical treatment can be applied. However, lymphedema patients often have limited knowledge and misconceptions regarding lymphedema and surgical treatment. We analyzed the correlations between lymphedema severity and surgical technique according to patients’ awareness of surgical treatment for secondary upper extremity lymphedema (UEL). Methods: Patients with UEL diagnosed between December 2017 and December 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. At the time of their presentation to our hospital for the treatment of lymphedema, they were administered a questionnaire about lymphedema and lymphedema surgery. Based on the results, patients were classified as being aware or unaware of surgical treatment. Lymphedema severity was classified according to the arm dermal backflow (ADB) stage and the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) stage based on indocyanine green lymphography conducted at presentation. Surgical techniques were compared between the two groups. Results: Patients who were aware of surgical treatment had significantly lower initial ADB and MDACC stages (P<0.05) and more frequently underwent physiologic procedures than excisional procedures (P=0.003). Conclusions If patients are actively educated regarding surgical treatment of lymphedema, physiologic procedures may be performed during the early stages of UEL.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused more than 100 million infections and 2 million deaths worldwide. In up to 20% of cases, COVID-19 infection can take a severe, life-threatening course. Therefore, preventive measures such as mask-wearing, hand hygiene, and social distancing are important. COVID-19 vaccines that use novel vaccine technology can prevent up to 95% of infections. However, the uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD), who are immunocompromised due to underlying immune dysfunction and concomitant immunosuppressive treatment, warrants clear guidance. A task force of the Korean College of Rheumatology formulated a set of vaccination guidance based on the currently available data and expert consensus. The currently available COVID-19 vaccines are considered to be safe and effective. Every patient with AIIRD should receive one of the available COVID-19 vaccines unless contraindicated for medical reasons such as prior allergy/anaphylaxis to the COVID-19 vaccine or its components. Patients should continue immunosuppressive treatment for their underlying AIIRD, including biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs). Corticosteroids should be reduced to the lowest dose possible without aggravating the AIIRD. To improve the vaccine response, methotrexate can be withheld for 1–2 weeks after each vaccination, and the timing of rituximab and abatacept infusion should be adjusted if clinically acceptable.Rheumatologists should play a leading role in educating and vaccinating patients with AIIRD.

Background: During the early stages of lymphedema, active physiologic surgical treatment can be applied. However, lymphedema patients often have limited knowledge and misconceptions regarding lymphedema and surgical treatment. We analyzed the correlations between lymphedema severity and surgical technique according to patients’ awareness of surgical treatment for secondary upper extremity lymphedema (UEL). Methods: Patients with UEL diagnosed between December 2017 and December 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. At the time of their presentation to our hospital for the treatment of lymphedema, they were administered a questionnaire about lymphedema and lymphedema surgery. Based on the results, patients were classified as being aware or unaware of surgical treatment. Lymphedema severity was classified according to the arm dermal backflow (ADB) stage and the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) stage based on indocyanine green lymphography conducted at presentation. Surgical techniques were compared between the two groups. Results: Patients who were aware of surgical treatment had significantly lower initial ADB and MDACC stages (P<0.05) and more frequently underwent physiologic procedures than excisional procedures (P=0.003). Conclusions If patients are actively educated regarding surgical treatment of lymphedema, physiologic procedures may be performed during the early stages of UEL.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused more than 100 million infections and 2 million deaths worldwide. In up to 20% of cases, COVID-19 infection can take a severe, life-threatening course. Therefore, preventive measures such as mask-wearing, hand hygiene, and social distancing are important. COVID-19 vaccines that use novel vaccine technology can prevent up to 95% of infections. However, the uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD), who are immunocompromised due to underlying immune dysfunction and concomitant immunosuppressive treatment, warrants clear guidance. A task force of the Korean College of Rheumatology formulated a set of vaccination guidance based on the currently available data and expert consensus. The currently available COVID-19 vaccines are considered to be safe and effective. Every patient with AIIRD should receive one of the available COVID-19 vaccines unless contraindicated for medical reasons such as prior allergy/anaphylaxis to the COVID-19 vaccine or its components. Patients should continue immunosuppressive treatment for their underlying AIIRD, including biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs). Corticosteroids should be reduced to the lowest dose possible without aggravating the AIIRD. To improve the vaccine response, methotrexate can be withheld for 1–2 weeks after each vaccination, and the timing of rituximab and abatacept infusion should be adjusted if clinically acceptable.Rheumatologists should play a leading role in educating and vaccinating patients with AIIRD.