Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Barriers to treatment with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in South Korea remain incompletely characterized. We analyze a nationwide prospective cohort to determine patient-level features associated with delayed presentation and non-treatment of potential IVT-eligible patients. Methods: We identified consecutive patients with AIS from 01/2011 to 08/2023 from a multicenter and prospective acute stroke registry in Korea. Patients were defined as IVT candidates if they presented within 4.5 hours from the last known well, had no lab evidence of coagulopathy, and had National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥ 4. Multivariable generalized linear mixed regression models were used to investigate the associations between their characteristics and the IVT candidates or the use of IVT among the candidates. Results: Among 84,103 AIS patients, 41.0% were female, with a mean age of 69 ± 13 years and presentation NIHSS of 4 [interquartile range, 1–8]. Out of these patients, 13,757 (16.4%) were eligible for IVT, of whom 8,179 (59.5%) received IVT. Female sex (adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.94) and lower years of education (adjusted RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84–0.97 for 0–3 years, compared to ≥ 13 years) were associated with a decreased likelihood of presenting as eligible for IVT after AIS; meanwhile, young age (adjusted RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01–1.24 for ≤ 44 years, compared to 75–84 years) was associated with an increased likelihood of being an IVT candidate. Among those who were eligible for IVT, only age was significantly associated with the use of IVT (adjusted RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03–1.16 for age 65–74 and adjusted RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76–0.90 for ≥ 85 years, respectively). Conclusion Most patients with AIS present outside IVT eligibility in South Korea, and only 60% of eligible patients were ultimately treated. We identified increased age, female sex and lower education as key features on which to focus interventions for improving IVT utilization.

Background: Barriers to treatment with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in South Korea remain incompletely characterized. We analyze a nationwide prospective cohort to determine patient-level features associated with delayed presentation and non-treatment of potential IVT-eligible patients. Methods: We identified consecutive patients with AIS from 01/2011 to 08/2023 from a multicenter and prospective acute stroke registry in Korea. Patients were defined as IVT candidates if they presented within 4.5 hours from the last known well, had no lab evidence of coagulopathy, and had National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥ 4. Multivariable generalized linear mixed regression models were used to investigate the associations between their characteristics and the IVT candidates or the use of IVT among the candidates. Results: Among 84,103 AIS patients, 41.0% were female, with a mean age of 69 ± 13 years and presentation NIHSS of 4 [interquartile range, 1–8]. Out of these patients, 13,757 (16.4%) were eligible for IVT, of whom 8,179 (59.5%) received IVT. Female sex (adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.94) and lower years of education (adjusted RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84–0.97 for 0–3 years, compared to ≥ 13 years) were associated with a decreased likelihood of presenting as eligible for IVT after AIS; meanwhile, young age (adjusted RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01–1.24 for ≤ 44 years, compared to 75–84 years) was associated with an increased likelihood of being an IVT candidate. Among those who were eligible for IVT, only age was significantly associated with the use of IVT (adjusted RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03–1.16 for age 65–74 and adjusted RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76–0.90 for ≥ 85 years, respectively). Conclusion Most patients with AIS present outside IVT eligibility in South Korea, and only 60% of eligible patients were ultimately treated. We identified increased age, female sex and lower education as key features on which to focus interventions for improving IVT utilization.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.