Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Evaluating cell metabolism is crucial during pluripotent stem cell (PSC) differentiation and somatic cell reprogramming as it affects cell fate. As cultured stem cells are heterogeneous, a comparative analysis of relative metabolism using existing metabolic analysis methods is difficult, resulting in inaccuracies. In this study, we measured human PSC basal metabolic levels using a Seahorse analyzer. We used fibroblasts, human induced PSCs, and human embryonic stem cells to monitor changes in basal metabolic levels according to cell number and determine the number of cells suitable for analysis. We evaluated normalization methods using glucose and selected the most suitable for the metabolic analysis of heterogeneous PSCs during the reprogramming stage. The response of fibroblasts to glucose increased with starvation time, with oxygen consumption rate and extracellular acidification rate responding most effectively to glucose 4 hours after starvation and declining after 5 hours of starvation. Fibroblasts and PSCs achieved appropriate responses to glucose without damaging their metabolism 2∼4 and 2∼3 hours after starvation, respectively. We developed a novel method for comparing basal metabolic rates of fibroblasts and PSCs, focusing on quantitative analysis of glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation using glucose without enzyme inhibitors. This protocol enables efficient comparison of energy metabolism among cell types, including undifferentiated PSCs, differentiated cells, and cells undergoing cellular reprogramming, and addresses critical issues, such as differences in basal metabolic levels and sensitivity to normalization, providing valuable insights into cellular energetics.

The standard treatment for choledocholithiasis is to remove the stones by performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). With various techniques such as basket extraction, balloon catheter extraction, mechanical lithotripsy, followed by endoscopic papillary sphincterotomy or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation, the success rate of stone extraction is known to be over 90%. However, stone extraction can fail in cases with large common bile duct stones or biliary stricture. We report a case of impacted choledocholithiasis after conventional ERCP and mechanical lithotripsy treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the oncologic outcomes and prognostic factors of salvage treatments in patients with recurrent oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) after radiotherapy (RT)-based treatment. Materials and Methods: A cancer registry was used to retrieve the records of 337 patients treated with definitive RT or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) from 2008 to 2018 at a single institution. The poor-responder group (PRG) was defined as patients with residual or recurrent disease after primary treatment, and the oncologic outcomes for each salvage treatment method were analyzed. In addition, prognostic indicators of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were identified in patients who underwent salvage treatment. Results: After initial (C)RT, the PRG comprised 71 of the 337 patients (21.1%): 18 patients had residual disease, and 53 had recurrence after primary treatment (mean time to recurrence 19.5 months). Of these, 63 patients received salvage treatment (surgery 57.2%, re-(C)RT 23.8%, and chemotherapy 19.0%), and the salvage success rate was 47.6% at the last follow-up. The overall 2-year OS for salvage treatments was 56.4% (60.8% for the salvage surgery group and 46.2% for the salvage re-(C)RT). Salvage surgery patients with negative resection margins had better oncologic outcomes than those with close/positive resection margins. Using multivariate analyses, locoregional recurrence and residual disease after primary surgery were associated with poor outcome after salvage treatment. In Kaplan-Meier analyses, p16 status was significantly associated with OS in the initial treatment setting but not in the salvage setting. Conclusion In recurrent OPSCC after RT-based treatment, successful salvage was achieved in 56.4% patients who had undergone salvage surgery and radiation treatment. Salvage treatment methods should be selected carefully, given recurrence site as a prognostic factor for RFS.

Background/Aims: It remains unclear which maintenance treatment modality is most appropriate for mild gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).We aimed to compare on-demand treatment with continuous treatment using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in the maintenance treatment for patients with non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis. Methods: Patients whose GERD symptoms improved after 4 weeks of standard dose PPI treatment were prospectively enrolled at 25 hospitals.Subsequently, the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to either an on-demand or a continuous maintenance treatment group, and followed in an 8-week interval for up to 24 weeks. Results: A total of 304 patients were randomized to maintenance treatment (continuous, n = 151 vs on-demand, n = 153). The primary outcome, the overall proportion of unwillingness to continue the assigned maintenance treatment modality, failed to confirm the noninferiority of on-demand treatment (45.9%) compared to continuous treatment (36.1%). Compared with the on-demand group, the GERD symptom and health-related quality of life scores significantly more improved and the overall satisfaction score was significantly higher in the continuous treatment group, particularly at week 8 and week 16 of maintenance treatment. Work impairment scores were not different in the 2 groups, but the prescription cost was less in the on-demand group. Serum gastrin levels significantly elevated in the continuous treatment group, but not in the on-demand group. Conclusions Continuous treatment seems to be more appropriate for the initial maintenance treatment of non-erosive GERD or mild erosive esophagitis than on-demand treatment. Stepping down to on-demand treatment needs to be considered after a sufficient period of continuous treatment.