Background: Lead exposure is a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), and coronary artery calcification (CAC) is a biomarker for diagnosing atherosclerotic CVD. This study investigated the association between blood lead level (BLL) and CAC using coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography. Methods: This study enrolled 2,189 participants from the general population with no history or symptoms of CVD. All participants underwent coronary CT angiography, health examination, and BLL testing. The association between coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and BLL was analyzed. Results: The arithmetic mean of BLL was 2.71 ± 1.26 μg/dL, and the geometric mean was 2.42 (1.64) μg/dL, ranging from 0.12 to 10.14 μg/dL. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between CACS and BLL (r = 0.073, P < 0.001). Mean BLLs among predefined CACS categories were as follows: absent grade (CACS = 0), 2.67 ± 1.23 μg/dL; minimal grade (> 0, < 10), 2.81 ± 1.25 μg/dL; mild grade (≥ 10, < 100), 2.74 ± 1.29 μg/dL; moderate grade (≥ 100, < 400), 2.88 ± 1.38 μg/dL; severe grade (≥ 400): 3.22 ± 1.68 μg/dL. The odds ratio for severe CAC was 1.242 in association with an 1 μg/dL increase in BLL (P = 0.042). Conclusion Using coronary CT angiography, we determined a positive correlation between BLL and CAC among participants without CVD from the general population. To reduce the burden of CVD, efforts and policies should be geared toward minimizing environmental lead exposure.

Background: In prosthesis-based breast reconstruction patients, the drain tends to be kept in place longer than in patients who undergo only mastectomy. Postoperative arm exercise also increases the drainage volume. However, to preserve shoulder function, early exercise is recommended. In this study, we investigated the effect of early exercise on the total drainage volume and drain duration in these patients. Methods: We designed a prospective randomized trial involving 56 patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy using tissue expanders. In each group, the patients were randomized either to perform early arm exercises using specific shoulder movement guidelines 2 days after surgery or to restrict arm movement above the shoulder height until drain removal. The drain duration and the total amount of drainage were the primary endpoints. Results: There were no significant differences in age, height, weight, body mass index, or mastectomy specimen weight between the two groups. The total amount of drainage was 1,497 mL in the early exercise group and 1,336 mL in the exercise restriction group. The duration until complete removal of the drains was 19.71 days in the early exercise group and 17.11 days in the exercise restriction group. Conclusions Exercise restriction after breast reconstruction did not lead to a significant difference in the drainage volume or the average time until drain removal. Thus, early exercise is recommended for improved shoulder mobility postoperatively. More long-term studies are needed to determine the effect of early exercise on shoulder mobility in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction patients.

Background/Aims: The mucoprotective drug rebamipide is used to treat gastritis and peptic ulcers. We compared the efficacy of Mucosta Ⓡ (rebamipide 100 mg) and its new formulation, AD-203 (rebamipide 150 mg), in treating erosive gastritis. Methods: This double-blind, active control, noninferiority, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial randomly assigned 475 patients with endoscopically proven erosive gastritis to two groups: AD-203 twice daily or Mucosta Ⓡ thrice daily for 2 weeks. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included 454 patients (AD-203, n=229; Mucosta Ⓡ , n=225), and the per-protocol (PP) analysis included 439 patients (AD-203, n=224; Mucosta Ⓡ , n=215). The posttreatment assessments included the primary (erosion improvement rate) and secondary endpoints (erosion and edema cure rates; improvement rates of redness, hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal symptoms). Drug-related adverse events were evaluated. Results: According to the ITT analysis, the erosion improvement rates (posttreatment) in AD-203-treated and Mucosta Ⓡ -treated patients were 39.7% and 43.8%, respectively. According to the PP analysis, the erosion improvement rates (posttreatment) in AD-203-treated and Mucosta Ⓡ -treated patients were 39.3% and 43.7%, respectively. The one-sided 97.5% lower limit for the improvement rate difference between the study groups was −4.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], –13.09% to 5.06%) in the ITT analysis and −4.44% (95% CI, –13.65% to 4.78%) in the PP analysis. The groups did not significantly differ in the secondary endpoints in either analysis. Twenty-four AD-203-treated and 20 Mucosta Ⓡ -treated patients reported adverse events but no serious adverse drug reactions; both groups presented similar adverse event rates. Conclusions The new formulation of rebamipide 150 mg (AD-203) twice daily was not inferior to rebamipide 100 mg (Mucosta Ⓡ ) thrice daily. Both formulations showed a similar efficacy in treating erosive gastritis.

Background/Aims: To analyze the incidence and risk factors of outcomes after liver transplantation (LT) in the Korean population. Methods: This study analyzed data from the liver cohort of Korean Organ Transplantation Registry (KOTRY) who had LT between May 2014 and December 2017. Study measures included the incidence of post-LT outcomes in recipients of living donor LT (LDLT) and deceased donor LT (DDLT). Cox multivariate proportional hazards model was used to determine the potential risk factors predicting the outcomes. Results: A total of 2,563 adult recipients with LT (LDLT, n=1,956; DDLT, n=607) were included, with mean±standard deviation age of 53.9±8.9 years, and 72.2% were male. The post-LT outcomes observed in each LDLT and DDLT recipients were death (4.0% and 14.7%), graft loss (5.0% and 16.1%), rejection (7.0% and 12.0%), renal failure (2.7% and 13.8%), new onset of diabetes (12.5% and 15.4%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence (both 6.7%). In both LDLT and DDLT recipients, the most common post-LT complications were renal dysfunction (33.6% and 51.4%), infection (26.7% and 48.4%), and surgical complication (22.5% and 23.9%). Incidence of these outcomes were generally higher among recipients of DDLT than LDLT. Multivariate analysis indicated recipient age and DDLT as significant risk factors associated with death and graft loss. DDLT and ABO incompatible transplant were prognostic factors for rejection, and HCC beyond Milan criteria at pre-transplant was a strong predictor of HCC recurrence. Conclusions This study is a good indicator of the post-LT prognosis in the Korean population and suggests a significant burden of post-LT complications.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues.This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.