Background and Objectives: Among various emerging catheter-based treatments for severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR), the spacer device can reduce the regurgitation orifice without manipulating the valve leaflet. However, its clinical application has been hampered by traumatic anchoring to the myocardium and the coaxial alignment of the balloon resulting in insufficient TR reduction. This study aimed to evaluate the early-stage safety, technical feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of the novel atraumatic vertical spacer in patients with isolated severe TR. Methods: All procedures were guided by fluoroscopy and transthoracic echocardiography.The maximum device placement time with an inflated balloon was 24 hours. Changes in the amount of TR, right ventricular function, and patient hemodynamics were measured during balloon deployment. Results: A total of 7 patients (median age 74), underwent successful device implantation without procedure-related complications. During balloon inflation (median 25 minutes), there were no symptoms or signs indicative of TR intolerance. TR was reduced by 1 grade or greater in all patients, with 2 patients exhibiting a reduction of 3 grades, from torrential TR to a moderate degree. Mild TR after balloon inflation was achieved in 3 patients with baseline severe TR. The TR reduction observed during initial balloon deployment was sustained during the subsequent balloon maintenance period. Conclusions The Pivot-balloon procedure was safe, technically feasible, and effective in reducing TR in patients with severe TR. No periprocedural complications or adverse cardiovascular events were reported during device placement with TR reduction observed in all patients. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm safety and treatment effect.

Background and Objectives: Among various emerging catheter-based treatments for severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR), the spacer device can reduce the regurgitation orifice without manipulating the valve leaflet. However, its clinical application has been hampered by traumatic anchoring to the myocardium and the coaxial alignment of the balloon resulting in insufficient TR reduction. This study aimed to evaluate the early-stage safety, technical feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of the novel atraumatic vertical spacer in patients with isolated severe TR. Methods: All procedures were guided by fluoroscopy and transthoracic echocardiography.The maximum device placement time with an inflated balloon was 24 hours. Changes in the amount of TR, right ventricular function, and patient hemodynamics were measured during balloon deployment. Results: A total of 7 patients (median age 74), underwent successful device implantation without procedure-related complications. During balloon inflation (median 25 minutes), there were no symptoms or signs indicative of TR intolerance. TR was reduced by 1 grade or greater in all patients, with 2 patients exhibiting a reduction of 3 grades, from torrential TR to a moderate degree. Mild TR after balloon inflation was achieved in 3 patients with baseline severe TR. The TR reduction observed during initial balloon deployment was sustained during the subsequent balloon maintenance period. Conclusions The Pivot-balloon procedure was safe, technically feasible, and effective in reducing TR in patients with severe TR. No periprocedural complications or adverse cardiovascular events were reported during device placement with TR reduction observed in all patients. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm safety and treatment effect.

Background and Objectives: Among various emerging catheter-based treatments for severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR), the spacer device can reduce the regurgitation orifice without manipulating the valve leaflet. However, its clinical application has been hampered by traumatic anchoring to the myocardium and the coaxial alignment of the balloon resulting in insufficient TR reduction. This study aimed to evaluate the early-stage safety, technical feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of the novel atraumatic vertical spacer in patients with isolated severe TR. Methods: All procedures were guided by fluoroscopy and transthoracic echocardiography.The maximum device placement time with an inflated balloon was 24 hours. Changes in the amount of TR, right ventricular function, and patient hemodynamics were measured during balloon deployment. Results: A total of 7 patients (median age 74), underwent successful device implantation without procedure-related complications. During balloon inflation (median 25 minutes), there were no symptoms or signs indicative of TR intolerance. TR was reduced by 1 grade or greater in all patients, with 2 patients exhibiting a reduction of 3 grades, from torrential TR to a moderate degree. Mild TR after balloon inflation was achieved in 3 patients with baseline severe TR. The TR reduction observed during initial balloon deployment was sustained during the subsequent balloon maintenance period. Conclusions The Pivot-balloon procedure was safe, technically feasible, and effective in reducing TR in patients with severe TR. No periprocedural complications or adverse cardiovascular events were reported during device placement with TR reduction observed in all patients. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm safety and treatment effect.

Background and Objectives: Among various emerging catheter-based treatments for severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR), the spacer device can reduce the regurgitation orifice without manipulating the valve leaflet. However, its clinical application has been hampered by traumatic anchoring to the myocardium and the coaxial alignment of the balloon resulting in insufficient TR reduction. This study aimed to evaluate the early-stage safety, technical feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of the novel atraumatic vertical spacer in patients with isolated severe TR. Methods: All procedures were guided by fluoroscopy and transthoracic echocardiography.The maximum device placement time with an inflated balloon was 24 hours. Changes in the amount of TR, right ventricular function, and patient hemodynamics were measured during balloon deployment. Results: A total of 7 patients (median age 74), underwent successful device implantation without procedure-related complications. During balloon inflation (median 25 minutes), there were no symptoms or signs indicative of TR intolerance. TR was reduced by 1 grade or greater in all patients, with 2 patients exhibiting a reduction of 3 grades, from torrential TR to a moderate degree. Mild TR after balloon inflation was achieved in 3 patients with baseline severe TR. The TR reduction observed during initial balloon deployment was sustained during the subsequent balloon maintenance period. Conclusions The Pivot-balloon procedure was safe, technically feasible, and effective in reducing TR in patients with severe TR. No periprocedural complications or adverse cardiovascular events were reported during device placement with TR reduction observed in all patients. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm safety and treatment effect.

Background and Objectives: Although the shortage of donor is a common problem worldwide, a significant portion of unutilized hearts are classified as marginal donor (MD) hearts. However, research on the correlation between the MD and the prognosis of heart transplantation (HTx) is lacking. This study was conducted to investigate the clinical impact of MD in HTx. Methods: Consecutive 73 HTxs during 2014 and 2021 in a tertiary hospital were analyzed.MD was defined as follows; a donor age >55 years, left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, cold ischemic time >240 minutes, or significant cardiac structural problems. Preoperative characteristics and postoperative hemodynamic data, primary graft dysfunction (PGD), and the survival rate were analyzed. Risk stratification by Index for Mortality Prediction after Cardiac Transplantation (IMPACT) score was performed to examine the outcomes according to the recipient state. Each group was sub-divided into 2 risk groups according to the IMPACT score (low <10 vs. high ≥10). Results: A total of 32 (43.8%) patients received an organ from MDs. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was more frequent in the non-MD group (34.4% vs. 70.7, p=0.007) There was no significant difference in PGD, 30-day mortality and long-term survival between groups. In the subgroup analysis, early outcomes did not differ between low- and high-risk groups. However, the long-term survival was better in the low-risk group (p=0.01). Conclusions The outcomes of MD group were not significantly different from non-MD group. Particularly, in low-risk recipient, the MD group showed excellent early and longterm outcomes. These results suggest the usability of selected MD hearts without increasing adverse events.

Background: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of add-on gemigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin and dapagliflozin. Methods: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, phase III study, 315 patients were randomized to receive either gemigliptin 50 mg (n=159) or placebo (n=156) with metformin and dapagliflozin for 24 weeks. After the 24-week treatment, patients who received the placebo were switched to gemigliptin, and all patients were treated with gemigliptin for an additional 28 weeks. Results: The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for body mass index. At week 24, the least squares mean difference (standard error) in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) changes was –0.66% (0.07) with a 95% confidence interval of –0.80% to –0.52%, demonstrating superior HbA1c reduction in the gemigliptin group. After week 24, the HbA1c level significantly decreased in the placebo group as gemigliptin was administered, whereas the efficacy of HbA1c reduction was maintained up to week 52 in the gemigliptin group. The safety profiles were similar: the incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events up to week 24 were 27.67% and 29.22% in the gemigliptin and placebo groups, respectively. The safety profiles after week 24 were similar to those up to week 24 in both groups, and no new safety findings, including hypoglycemia, were noted. Conclusion Add-on gemigliptin was well tolerated, providing comparable safety profiles and superior efficacy in glycemic control over placebo for long-term use in patients with T2DM who had poor glycemic control with metformin and dapagliflozin.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to investigate the patterns of preferred endoscopic procedure types and techniques for managing difficult common bile duct (CBD) stones in South Korea. Methods: The Committee of Policy and Quality Management of Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) conducted a survey containing 19 questions. Both paper and online surveys were carried out; with the paper survey being conducted during the 2019 Annual Congress of KPBA and the online survey being conducted through Google Forms from April 2020 to February 2021. Results: The response rate was approximately 41.3% (86/208). Sixty-two (73.0%) worked at tertiary hospitals or academic medical centers, and 60 (69.7%) had more than 5 years of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography experience. The preferred size criteria for large CBD stones were 15 mm (40.6%), 20 mm (31.3%), and 30 mm (4.6%). For managing of large CBD stones, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation after endoscopic sphincterotomy was the most preferred technique (74.4%). When performing procedures in those with bleeding diathesis, 64 (74.4%) respondents favored endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) alone or EPBD with small endoscopic sphincterotomy. Fifty-five respondents (63.9%) preferred the doubleguidewire technique when faced with difficult bile duct cannulation in patients with periampullary diverticulum. In surgically altered anatomies, cap-fitted forward viewing endoscopy (76.7%) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (48.8%) were the preferred techniques for Billroth-II anastomosis and total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis, respectively. Conclusions Most respondents showed unifying trends for the management of difficult CBD stones. The current practice patterns could be used as basic data for clinical quality improvements in the management of difficult CBD stones.

Background/Aims: Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are widely used for tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid mass, the optimal strategy of this procedure has not been established yet. The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate the current practice patterns of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass in Korea. Methods: The Policy-Quality Management of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) developed a questionnaire containing 22 questions. An electronic survey consisting of the questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to members registered to the KPBA. Results: A total of 101 respondents completed the survey. Eighty respondents (79.2%) performed preoperative EUS-FNA/FNB for operable pancreatic solid mass. Acquire needles (60.4%) were used the most, followed by ProCore needles (47.5%). In terms of need size, most respondents (>80%) preferred 22-gauge needles regardless of the location of the mass. Negative suction with a 10-mL syringe (71.3%) as sampling technique was followed by stylet slow-pull (41.6%). More than three needle passes for EUS-FNA/FNB was performed by most respondents (>80%). The frequency of requiring repeated procedure was significantly higher in respondents with a low individual volume (<5 per month, p=0.001). Prophylactic antibiotics were routinely used in 39 respondents (38.6%); rapid on-site pathologic evaluation was used in 6.1%. Conclusions According to this survey, practices of EUS-FNA/FNB for pancreatic solid mass varied substantially, some of which differed considerably from the recommendations present in existing guidelines. These results suggest that the development of evidence-based quality guidelines fitting Korean clinical practice is needed to establish the optimal strategy for this procedure.

Procedural sedation has become increasingly common in endoscopy. Sedatives and analgesics induce anxiolysis and amnesia. In addition, an appropriate level of sedation is necessary for safe procedures including therapeutic endoscopy. Midazolam and propofol are the most commonly used drugs in sedative endoscopy. In recent years, the need to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of sedation has increased in practice. Therefore, new sedatives and analgesic drugs for optimal sedative endoscopy, have recently emerged. This article reviews the characteristics of sedatives and analgesics, and describes their clinical use in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to determine changes in endoscopist-driven sedation practices 5 years after the first nationwide survey in 2014 by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Methods: A 59-item survey covering current practices was electronically mailed to all members of the KSGE in 2019. Results: In total, 955 (12.8%) out of 7,486 questionnaires were returned. A total of 738 (77.7%) out of 955 respondents attended dedicated sedation education programs. The American Society of Anesthesiologists class was recorded by 464 (51.2%) out of 907 respondents. The recording rate was higher in respondents who completed sedation education (p=0.014) and worked in general or tertiary hospitals (p<0.001). Compared to that reported in the previous survey, the reported use of propofol was higher in 2019. The respondents had higher satisfaction scores for propofol-based sedation compared with midazolam monotherapy (p<0.001). The rates of oxygen supplementation (p<0.001) and oxygen saturation level monitoring (p<0.001) during sedative endoscopy were higher in 2019 than in the previous survey. A total of 876 (98.4%) out of 890 respondents reported a separate recovery bay, and 615 (70.5%) out of 872 respondents reported that personnel were assigned solely to the recovery bay. Conclusions Endoscopist-driven sedation and monitoring practices in 2019 were significantly different than those in 2014. The respondents favored propofol-based sedation and utilized oxygen supplementation and monitoring of O2 saturation more frequently in 2019 than in 2014.