Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

Background: The heart donor allocation system in South Korea is divided into three regions, with priority given to recipients within the same region over those in other regions of the same tier. It is commonly believed that heart transplantation (HT) within the same region can reduce ischemic time (IT), although its clinical impact remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics and outcomes of intra-region HT and inter-region HT. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, a total of 115 adult patients underwent isolated HT at a tertiary hospital. Of these, 58 recipients (54.5 ± 10.3 years, female, 36.2%) underwent intra-region HT and 57 recipients (53.9 ± 14.1 years, female, 31.6%) underwent inter-region HT. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-bridged HTs accounted for 50.0% and 54.4% of cases, respectively (P = 0.638). There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Results: The median inter-hospital distance (38.0 [32.0–112.0] km vs. 351.0 [300.0–390.5] km, P < 0.001) and total IT (153 [123–170] minute vs. 265 [243–298] minute, P < 0.001) were longer in the inter-region group than intra-region group. Despite these differences, both groups showed similar clinical outcomes. The 30-day mortality rates were 5.2% and 5.3% (P < 0.99), respectively. There were no differences in postoperative cardiac index, early adverse outcomes, or long-term survival between the two groups. The inter-hospital distance and cold IT showed a strong positive correlation (time [minute] = 39.462 + 0.410 × distance [km]). Conclusion Despite the difference in IT, there was no difference in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Based on these findings, the effect of donor location on the outcomes of HT in South Korea is not considered significant.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.