Background: and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4. Conclusion Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.

Background: and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4. Conclusion Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.

Background: and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4. Conclusion Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.

Background and Objectives: Evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) for guidance during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is limited. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of ICE versus transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for guiding TAVR. Methods: This prospective cohort study included patients who underwent TAVR from August 18, 2015, to June 31, 2021. Eligible patients were stratified by echocardiographic modality (ICE or TEE) and anesthesia mode (monitored anesthesia care [MAC] or general anesthesia [GA]). Primary outcome was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for cardiovascular cause, or stroke, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) definition. Propensity score matching was performed, and study outcomes were analyzed for the matched cohorts. Results: Of the 359 eligible patients, 120 patients were matched for the ICE-MAC and TEEGA groups, respectively. The incidence of primary outcome was similar between matched groups (18.3% vs. 20.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53– 1.68; p=0.843). ICE-MAC and TEE-GA also had similar incidences of moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (4.2% vs. 5.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.23– 2.82; p=0.758), new permanent pacemaker implantation, and VARC-3 types 2–4 bleeding. Conclusions ICE was comparable to TEE for guidance during TAVR for the composite clinical efficacy outcome, with similar incidences of moderate-to-severe PVR, new permanent pacemaker implantation, and major bleeding. These results suggest that ICE could be a safe and effective alternative echocardiographic modality to TEE for guiding TAVR.

Background and Objectives: Identifying patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) is important when making decisions for antiplatelet therapy strategy. This study evaluated the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) according to HBR in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with drug eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In this post-hoc analysis of the TICO trial, HBR was defined by 2 approaches: meeting Academic Research Consortium for HBR (ARC-HBR) criteria or Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent DAPT (PRECISEDAPT) score ≥25. The primary outcome was a 3–12 months net adverse clinical event (composite of major bleeding and adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Results: Of the 2,980 patients without adverse events during the first 3 months after DES implantation, 453 (15.2%) were HBR by ARC-HBR criteria and 504 (16.9%) were HBR by PRECISE-DAPT score. The primary outcome rate was higher in HBR versus non-HBR patients (by ARC-HBR criteria: hazard ratio [HR], 2.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76– 4.69; p<0.001; by PRECISE-DAPT score: HR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.92–4.98; p<0.001). Ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT was associated with lower primary outcome rate than ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT regardless of HBR by ARC-HBR criteria, with similar magnitudes of therapy effect for HBR and non-HBR patients (p-interaction=0.400). Results were consistent by PRECISE-DAPT score (p-interaction=0.178). Conclusions In ACS patients treated with DESs, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT was associated with lower rate of adverse clinical outcomes regardless of HBR, with similar magnitudes of therapy effect between HBR and non-HBR.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02494895

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.

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 (KSGE) 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 Indications 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.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.

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 develop 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 Indications 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.