Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the incidence of and factors associated with major complications, delayed discharge, and emergency room (ER) visits or readmission after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) <3 cm in a recent cohort at a tertiary cancer center. Methods: A total of 188 patients with treatment-naïve single HCCs <3 cm who underwent RFA between January 2018 and April 2021 were included in the analysis. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with major complications, delayed discharge, and ER visits or readmission. Local tumor progression (LTP) and overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis. Results: Major complications occurred in 3.2% (6/188) of the patients. The longest diameter of the ablation zone was significantly larger in patients with major complications (P=0.023). Delayed discharge occurred in 5.8% (9/188) of the patients, for which albumin-bilirubin grade 3 was identified as an important determinant. No variables other than major complications were significantly associated with ER visits or readmission, which occurred in 7.0% (13/188) of the patients. Major complications, delayed discharge, and ER visits or readmission were not substantially related to the post-treatment outcomes of LTP and overall survival. Conclusion This study confirmed RFA as a highly safe procedure for single HCCs <3 cm, despite the rapidly changing RFA techniques in the most recent cohort. A large ablation zone and poor liver function were predictors of major complications and delayed discharge, respectively.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

Objective: To investigate the association among the electrode placement method, electrode type, and local tumor progression (LTP) following percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) and to assess the risk factors for LTP. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, we enrolled 211 patients, including 150 males and 61 females, who had undergone ultrasound-guided RFA for a single HCC < 3 cm. Patients were divided into four combination groups of the electrode type and placement method: 1) tumor-puncturing with an internally cooled tip (ICT), 2) tumor-puncturing with an internally cooled wet tip (ICWT), 3) no-touch with ICT, and 4) no-touch with ICWT. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk factors for LTP. The major RFA-related complications were assessed. Results: Overall, 83, 34, 80, and 14 patients were included in the ICT, ICWT, no-touch with ICT, and no-touch with ICWT groups, respectively. The cumulative LTP rates differed significantly among the four groups. Compared to tumor puncturing with ICT, tumor puncturing with ICWT was associated with a lower LTP risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0–0.88, P = 0.034). However, the cumulative LTP rate did not differ significantly between tumorpuncturing with ICT and no-touch RFA with ICT (aHR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.03–1.62, P = 0.188) or ICWT (aHR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0–2.28, P = 0.294). An insufficient ablative margin was a risk factor for LTP (aHR = 6.13, 95% CI = 1.41–22.49, P = 0.019). The major complication rates were 1.2%, 0%, 2.5%, and 21.4% in the ICT, ICWT, no-touch with ICT, and no-touch with ICWT groups, respectively. Conclusion ICWT was associated with a lower LTP rate compared to ICT when performing tumor-puncturing RFA. An insufficient ablation margin was a risk factor for LTP.

Objective: Dual trigger is used to induce final oocyte maturation during the process of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, yet yielding controversial results. Also, there are yet no data regarding the effect of the dosage of the dual trigger on clinical outcomes. Based on the Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) criteria, this study aimed to determine the clinical difference of a single bolus versus two boluses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in POSEIDON group IV patients using dual trigger. Methods: We screened a total of 1,256 patients who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles who met the POSEIDON group IV criteria. Six hundred and twenty-nine patients received one bolus of GnRHa, and 627 patients were given two boluses. All patients received the same dose of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin during the dual trigger cycle. Results: Metaphase II oocyte retrieval rate, fertilization rate and clinical pregnancy rate did not differ between the two groups. However, a lower percentage of at least one top-quality embryo transfer (34.3% vs. 26.0%, P=0.001) in the two bolus-GnRHa group was noted. Conclusion A double bolus of GnRHa did not show superior clinical results compared to a single bolus of GnRHa in the dual trigger IVF cycle. Therefore, GnRHa doses for use should be decided based on individual clinical situations considering cost-effectiveness and patient compliance, but further investigation will be needed.

Objective: To compare the therapeutic outcomes of laparoscopic hepatic resection (LHR) and laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) for single subcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and Methods: We screened 244 consecutive patients who had received either LHR or LRFA between January 2014 and December 2016. The feasibility of LRFA in patients who underwent LHR was retrospectively assessed by two interventional radiologists. Finally, 60 LRFA-feasible patients who had received LHR and 29 patients who had received LRFA as the first treatment for a solitary subcapsular HCC between 1 cm and 3 cm were finally included. We compared the therapeutic outcomes, including local tumor progression (LTP), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) between the two groups before and after propensity score (PS) matching. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was also used to evaluate the difference in OS and RFS between the two groups for all 89 patients. Results: PS matching yielded 23 patients in each group. The cumulative LTP and OS rates were not significantly different between the LHR and LRFA groups after PS matching (p = 0.900 and 0.003, respectively). The 5-year LTP rates were 4.6% and 4.4%, respectively, and OS rates were 100% and 90.7%, respectively. The RFS rate was higher in LHR group without statistical significance (p = 0.070), with 5-year rates of 78.3% and 45.3%, respectively. OS was not significantly different between the LHR (reference) and LRFA groups in multivariable analyses, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.12–1.54) (p = 0.818). RFS was higher in LHR (reference) than in LRFA without statistical significance in multivariable analysis, with an HR of 2.01 (0.87–4.66) (p = 0.102). Conclusion There was no significant difference in therapeutic outcomes between LHR and LRFA for single subcapsular HCCs measuring 1–3 cm. The difference in RFS should be further evaluated in a larger study.