Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

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.

Background/Aims: Chicago classification version 4.0 enhances the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders using position change and provocative tests such as multiple rapid swallows and a rapid drink challenge. This study investigates the diagnostic role of the rapid drink challenge based on Chicago classification 4.0 using a functional luminal imaging probe to estimate the cutoff value. Methods: This study included 570 patients who underwent esophageal manometry with a rapid drink challenge between January 2019 and October 2022. The diagnostic flow was analyzed according to Chicago classification 4.0. Results: Ninety-nine patients (38, achalasia; 11, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction; 7, ineffective esophageal motility; 1, hypercontractile esophagus; and 42, normal esophageal function) failed the rapid drink challenge. Among the 453 participants, 50and 86 were diagnosed with achalasia and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, respectively, using Chicago classification4.0. In 249/453 (55.0%) patients initially diagnosed with esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction using Chicago classification3.0, the diagnosis was changed to achalasia (n = 28), hypercontractile esophagus (n = 7), ineffective esophageal motility (n = 7), or normal esophageal function (n = 121) using Chicago classification 4.0. Rapid drink challenge-integrated relaxation pressure’s diagnostic cutoff value was 19 mmHg. Nine patients had diagnoses changed after the rapid drink challenge, including 3 with panesophageal pressurization. Conclusions Chicago classification 4.0 increased the diagnostic yield of the rapid drink challenge by 2.0% (9/453 patients). However, the rapid drink challenge had a failure rate of 17.9% (99/552 patients). Given the relatively low diagnostic yield and high failure rate of therapid drink challenge, we recommend adopting an individualized approach to manometry.

Background/Aims: Chicago classification version 4.0 enhances the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders using position change and provocative tests such as multiple rapid swallows and a rapid drink challenge. This study investigates the diagnostic role of the rapid drink challenge based on Chicago classification 4.0 using a functional luminal imaging probe to estimate the cutoff value. Methods: This study included 570 patients who underwent esophageal manometry with a rapid drink challenge between January 2019 and October 2022. The diagnostic flow was analyzed according to Chicago classification 4.0. Results: Ninety-nine patients (38, achalasia; 11, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction; 7, ineffective esophageal motility; 1, hypercontractile esophagus; and 42, normal esophageal function) failed the rapid drink challenge. Among the 453 participants, 50and 86 were diagnosed with achalasia and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, respectively, using Chicago classification4.0. In 249/453 (55.0%) patients initially diagnosed with esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction using Chicago classification3.0, the diagnosis was changed to achalasia (n = 28), hypercontractile esophagus (n = 7), ineffective esophageal motility (n = 7), or normal esophageal function (n = 121) using Chicago classification 4.0. Rapid drink challenge-integrated relaxation pressure’s diagnostic cutoff value was 19 mmHg. Nine patients had diagnoses changed after the rapid drink challenge, including 3 with panesophageal pressurization. Conclusions Chicago classification 4.0 increased the diagnostic yield of the rapid drink challenge by 2.0% (9/453 patients). However, the rapid drink challenge had a failure rate of 17.9% (99/552 patients). Given the relatively low diagnostic yield and high failure rate of therapid drink challenge, we recommend adopting an individualized approach to manometry.

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/Aims: Chicago classification version 4.0 enhances the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders using position change and provocative tests such as multiple rapid swallows and a rapid drink challenge. This study investigates the diagnostic role of the rapid drink challenge based on Chicago classification 4.0 using a functional luminal imaging probe to estimate the cutoff value. Methods: This study included 570 patients who underwent esophageal manometry with a rapid drink challenge between January 2019 and October 2022. The diagnostic flow was analyzed according to Chicago classification 4.0. Results: Ninety-nine patients (38, achalasia; 11, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction; 7, ineffective esophageal motility; 1, hypercontractile esophagus; and 42, normal esophageal function) failed the rapid drink challenge. Among the 453 participants, 50and 86 were diagnosed with achalasia and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, respectively, using Chicago classification4.0. In 249/453 (55.0%) patients initially diagnosed with esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction using Chicago classification3.0, the diagnosis was changed to achalasia (n = 28), hypercontractile esophagus (n = 7), ineffective esophageal motility (n = 7), or normal esophageal function (n = 121) using Chicago classification 4.0. Rapid drink challenge-integrated relaxation pressure’s diagnostic cutoff value was 19 mmHg. Nine patients had diagnoses changed after the rapid drink challenge, including 3 with panesophageal pressurization. Conclusions Chicago classification 4.0 increased the diagnostic yield of the rapid drink challenge by 2.0% (9/453 patients). However, the rapid drink challenge had a failure rate of 17.9% (99/552 patients). Given the relatively low diagnostic yield and high failure rate of therapid drink challenge, we recommend adopting an individualized approach to manometry.