Background and Objectives: The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men. Methods: COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

Background and Objectives: The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men. Methods: COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

Background and Objectives: The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men. Methods: COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

Background and Objectives: The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men. Methods: COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background/Aims: Efficacy of proton pump inhibitors is limited in patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD). The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of esomeprazole with sodium bicarbonate and esomeprazole alone. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority comparative study. A total of 379 patients with NERD were randomly allocated to receive either EsoduoⓇ/sup> (esomeprazole 20 mg with sodium bicarbonate 800 mg) or NexiumⓇ/sup> (esomeprazole 20 mg) once daily for 4 weeks from January 2019 to December 2019. The patients had a history of heartburn for at least 2 days in the week before randomization as well as in the last 3 months and no esophageal mucosal breaks on endoscopy. The primary endpoint was a complete cure of heartburn at week 4. The secondary and exploratory endpoints as well as the safety profiles were compared in the groups at weeks 2 and 4. Results: A total of 355 patients completed the study (180 in the EsoduoⓇ/sup> group and 175 in the NexiumⓇ/sup> group). The proportions of patients without heartburn in the entire 4th week of treatment were not different between the two groups (33.33% in the EsoduoⓇ/sup> group and 35% in the NexiumⓇ/sup> group, p=0.737). There were no significant differences in most of the secondary and exploratory endpoints as well as the safety profiles. Conclusions EsoduoⓇ/sup> is as effective and safe as NexiumⓇ/sup> for managing typical symptoms in patients with NERD (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT03928470).

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (appointed a Task Force to develope medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on indication for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.