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.

Purpose: The Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) risk prediction model is a simple method for estimating risk for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. The model considers both treatment methods and the physical characteristics of the aneurysm type as well as comorbidities. This research aimed to validate its effectiveness by analyzing retrospective data on Korean patients. Methods: Our single-center retrospective analysis included 1,227 patients who underwent elective open repair surgery (ORS) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) from 2005 to 2021. We assessed the discrimination of the risk score and the effects of several risk factors. Results: Most patients (66.7%) were classified as low risk in the model, with only 5.6% considered high risk. The mean risk score was 2.81, significantly lower than reported in previous studies. The actual 30-day mortality was only 0.7%, less than the predicted 1.1%. The accuracy of the model in predicting 30-day mortality was statistically significant (area under the curve, 0.822). Patients with high scores were associated with significantly increased mortality (odds ratio, 3.9; P < 0.001). Factors such as advanced age, cerebrovascular disease, and elevated creatinine levels were influential in mortality outcomes. However, a significant difference was not found in short-term mortality between ORS and EVAR. Conclusion Although the VSGNE model is an objective tool for assessing death risk in elective AAA repair, the actual risk scores in our patient population were lower than predicted. To create a more representative tool for the Korean population, we suggest developing a novel model based on multicenter data collection.

Purpose: The Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) risk prediction model is a simple method for estimating risk for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. The model considers both treatment methods and the physical characteristics of the aneurysm type as well as comorbidities. This research aimed to validate its effectiveness by analyzing retrospective data on Korean patients. Methods: Our single-center retrospective analysis included 1,227 patients who underwent elective open repair surgery (ORS) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) from 2005 to 2021. We assessed the discrimination of the risk score and the effects of several risk factors. Results: Most patients (66.7%) were classified as low risk in the model, with only 5.6% considered high risk. The mean risk score was 2.81, significantly lower than reported in previous studies. The actual 30-day mortality was only 0.7%, less than the predicted 1.1%. The accuracy of the model in predicting 30-day mortality was statistically significant (area under the curve, 0.822). Patients with high scores were associated with significantly increased mortality (odds ratio, 3.9; P < 0.001). Factors such as advanced age, cerebrovascular disease, and elevated creatinine levels were influential in mortality outcomes. However, a significant difference was not found in short-term mortality between ORS and EVAR. Conclusion Although the VSGNE model is an objective tool for assessing death risk in elective AAA repair, the actual risk scores in our patient population were lower than predicted. To create a more representative tool for the Korean population, we suggest developing a novel model based on multicenter data collection.

Purpose: The Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) risk prediction model is a simple method for estimating risk for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. The model considers both treatment methods and the physical characteristics of the aneurysm type as well as comorbidities. This research aimed to validate its effectiveness by analyzing retrospective data on Korean patients. Methods: Our single-center retrospective analysis included 1,227 patients who underwent elective open repair surgery (ORS) or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) from 2005 to 2021. We assessed the discrimination of the risk score and the effects of several risk factors. Results: Most patients (66.7%) were classified as low risk in the model, with only 5.6% considered high risk. The mean risk score was 2.81, significantly lower than reported in previous studies. The actual 30-day mortality was only 0.7%, less than the predicted 1.1%. The accuracy of the model in predicting 30-day mortality was statistically significant (area under the curve, 0.822). Patients with high scores were associated with significantly increased mortality (odds ratio, 3.9; P < 0.001). Factors such as advanced age, cerebrovascular disease, and elevated creatinine levels were influential in mortality outcomes. However, a significant difference was not found in short-term mortality between ORS and EVAR. Conclusion Although the VSGNE model is an objective tool for assessing death risk in elective AAA repair, the actual risk scores in our patient population were lower than predicted. To create a more representative tool for the Korean population, we suggest developing a novel model based on multicenter data collection.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Purpose: This study was performed to analyze the association between age and outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) by comparing postoperative outcomes between octogenarians and younger patients. Methods: From November 1994 to December 2022, 1,585 internal carotid arteries of 1,434 patients were enrolled. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: octogenarians (≥80 years old) and non-octogenarians (<80 years old). Primary endpoints were early (≤30 days) outcomes of ipsilateral stroke, any stroke, myocardial infarction, death, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We also compared overall any stroke and death between the 2 groups. Results: One of 132 octogenarians (0.8%) and 17 of 1,453 non-octogenarians (1.1%) experienced ipsilateral stroke within 30 days. Thirty-day MACE occurred in 4 of 132 octogenarians (3%) and 44 of 1,453 non-octogenarians (3%). There were no significant differences in any early (≤30 days) outcomes. Symptomatic status was associated with increased 30-day MACE (odds ratio [OR], 2.610; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.450–4.696; P = 0.003) and 30-day any stroke (OR, 3.999; 95% CI, 1.627–9.828; P = 0.003). Symptomatic status was also associated with overall any stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.885; 95% CI, 1.865–4.463; P < 0.001), but age of ≥80 years was not associated with 30-day MACE, 30-day any stroke, or overall stroke. Age of ≥80 years was only associated with overall survival (HR, 2.644; 95% CI, 1.967–3.555; P < 0.001). Conclusion CEA would be a safe and effective treatment for octogenarians with low 30-day complications and long-term stroke rates, comparable with that of younger counterparts. Advanced age is not a contraindication for CEA.