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.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important opportunistic viral pathogen in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.The Korean guideline for the prevention of CMV infection in SOT recipients was developed jointly by the Korean Society for Infectious Diseases and the Korean Society of Transplantation. CMV serostatus of both donors and recipients should be screened before transplantation to best assess the risk of CMV infection after SOT. Seronegative recipients receiving organs from seropositive donors face the highest risk, followed by seropositive recipients. Either antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy can be used to prevent CMV infection. While both strategies have been demonstrated to prevent CMV infection post-transplant, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. CMV serostatus, transplant organ, other risk factors, and practical issues should be considered for the selection of preventive measures. There is no universal viral load threshold to guide treatment in preemptive therapy. Each institution should define and validate its own threshold.Valganciclovir is the favored agent for both prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. The evaluation of CMV-specific cellmediated immunity and the monitoring of viral load kinetics are gaining interest, but there was insufficient evidence to issue recommendations. Specific considerations on pediatric transplant recipients are included.

Background/Aims: With the global increase in patients with solid malignancies, it is helpful to understand the outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for these patients. This study evaluated the risk factors for ICU mortality and the shortand long-term outcomes in patients with solid malignancies who had unplanned ICU admission. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with solid malignancies treated at the medical ICU of a single tertiary center in South Korea between 2016 and 2022. Results: Among the 955 patients, the ICU mortality rate was 23.5%. Lung cancer was the most common cancer type (34.2%) and was significantly associated with increased ICU mortality (odd ratio [OR] 1.58, p = 0.030). Higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at ICU admission (OR 1.11, p < 0.001), the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 6.74, p < 0.001), or renal replacement therapy during the ICU stay (OR 2.49, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher ICU mortality. The 1-year survival rate after ICU admission was 29.3%, with a median survival of 37 days for patients requiring mechanical deviaventilation, and 23 days for patients requiring renal replacement therapy. Conclusions This study showed that critically ill patients with solid malignancies had poor 1-year survival despite relatively low ICU mortality. These findings highlight the need for careful consideration of ICU admission in patients with solid malignancy, and decision-making should be based on an understanding of the expected short- and long-term prognosis of ICU admission after an informed discussion among patients, families, and physicians.

Background: Current international guidelines recommend against deep sedation as it is associated with worse outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, in Korea the prevalence of deep sedation and its impact on patients in the ICU are not well known. Methods: From April 2020 to July 2021, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal, noninterventional cohort study was performed in 20 Korean ICUs. Sedation depth extent was divided into light and deep using a mean Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale value within the first 48 hours. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariables; the outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: Overall, 631 patients (418 [66.2%] and 213 [33.8%] in the deep and light sedation groups, respectively) were included. Mortality rates were 14.1% and 8.4% in the deep and light sedation groups (P = 0.039), respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that time to extubation (P < 0.001), ICU length of stay (P = 0.005), and death P = 0.041) differed between the groups. After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation was only associated with delayed time to extubation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence inter val [CI], 0.55– 0.80; P < 0.001). In the matched cohort, deep sedation remained significantly associated with delayed time to extubation (HR, 0.68; 95% 0.56–0.83; P < 0.001) but was not associated with ICU length of stay (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79–1.13; P = 0.500) and in-hospital mortality (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.65–2.17; P = 0.582). Conclusion In many Korean ICUs, early deep sedation was highly prevalent in mechanically ventilated patients and was associated with delayed extubation, but not prolonged ICU stay or in-hospital death.

Sarcoidosis is a systemic granulomatous disorder of unknown etiology characterized by granuloma formation. Due to the limited incidence of sarcoidosis in pediatric patients, little is known about the clinical course of this disease. A combination of clinical, radiologic, and pathologic examination is necessary to exclude other differential diagnoses (i.e., infection and granulomatous inflammatory disorder) and establish a diagnosis of sarcoidosis. Here, we report a case of histologically confirmed sarcoidosis initially misdiagnosed as hepatosplenic abscesses in an 11-year-old male. Treatment with corticosteroids improved his symptoms and resolved his skin and hepatosplenic lesions. A three-year follow-up was uneventful. This study emphasizes the importance of considering sarcoidosis in children presenting with findings of multi-organ involvement in the presence of histologic evidence of granuloma.

Korean Society of Thyroid-Head and Neck Surgery appointed a Task Force to provide guidance on the implementation of a surgical treatment of oral cancer. MEDLINE databases were searched for articles on subjects related to “surgical management of oral cancer” published in English. Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. The quality of evidence was rated with use RoBANS (Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Evidence-based recommendations for practice were ranked according to the American College of Physicians grading system. Additional directives are provided as expert opinions and Delphi questionnaire when insufficient evidence existed. The Committee developed 68 evidence-based recommendations in 34 categories intended to assist clinicians and patients and counselors, and health policy-makers. Proper surgical treatment selection for oral cancer, which is directed by patient- and subsite-specific factors, remains the greatest predictor of successful treatment outcomes. These guidelines are intended for use in conjunction with the individual patient's treatment goals.
Advisory Committees ; Bias (Epidemiology) ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell ; Counseling ; Expert Testimony ; Humans ; Mouth Neoplasms ; Neck ; Republic of Korea