Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF patients.

Background/Aims: Little is known about the practical clinical application of neuromodulators and psychiatric treatments in patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs). We investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Korean clinicians regarding the use of neuromodulators and psychiatric treatments for FGIDs. Methods: This prospective, online, cross-sectional study was conducted between May and August 2022. A questionnaire regarding the knowledge, attitude, and practice of neuromodulators and psychiatric treatments for FGIDs was developed and administered to primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists in university hospitals in Korea. Results: Overall, 451 clinicians from primary (n = 179, 39.7%), secondary (n = 113, 25.1%), and tertiary (n = 159, 35.3%) hospitals participated in the survey. Most of them considered that neuromodulators (98.7%) and psychiatric treatment (86.5%) were required for patients with FGIDs. However, approximately one-third of them did not prescribe neuromodulators, mainly due to unfamiliarity with the drugs, and only one-quarter considered psychiatric referral. Compared to gastroenterologists at university hospitals, primary care clinicians’ prescriptions had a lower rate (87.2% vs 64.2%, P < 0.001) and shorter duration of neuromodulator. The psychiatric referral rate was lower for primary care clinicians than for gastroenterologists at university hospitals (19.0% vs 34.2%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Knowledge, attitude, and practice levels regarding neuromodulators and psychiatric treatment among clinicians are inhomogeneous, and a knowledge gap exists between primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists at university hospitals. Encouraging ongoing education for Korean clinicians regarding the appropriate use of neuromodulators and psychiatric treatments in patients with FGIDs is suggested.

Purpose: For the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), research on primary lesions with mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement is lacking. This study analyzed the clinical outcomes and efficacy of dose-escalated neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) to patients with LARC involving MRF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 301 patients who were diagnosed with LARC involving MRF and underwent NCRT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). Patients who received radiotherapy (RT) doses of ≤50.4 Gy were defined as the non-boost group, while ≥54.0 Gy as the boost group. Pathological tumor response and survival outcomes, including intrapelvic recurrence-free survival (IPRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS), were analyzed. Results: A total of 269 patients (89.4%) achieved a negative pathological circumferential resection margin and 104 (34.6%) had good pathological tumor regression grades. With a median follow-up of 32.4 months, IPRFS, DMFS, and OS rates at 5-years were 88.6%, 78.0%, and 91.2%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis by RT dose, the boost group included more advanced clinical stages of patients. For the non-boost group and boost group, 5-year IPRFS rates were 90.3% and 87.0% (p = 0.242), 5-year DMFS rates were 82.0% and 71.3% (p = 0.105), and 5-year OS rates were 93.0% and 80.6% (p = 0.439), respectively. Treatment related toxicity was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.211). Conclusion Although this retrospective study failed to confirm the efficacy of dose-escalated NCRT, favorable IPRFS and pathological complete response was achieved with NCRT followed by TME. Further studies combining patient customized RT dose with systemic therapies are needed.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background: Recent guidelines about preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend against the administration of prophylactic antibiotics after surgery. However, many colorectal surgeons still prefer prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard for colorectal cancer surgery, there were few studies about proper dose of prophylactic antibiotics in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study. All patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery using MIS. Intravenous cefotetan was administered as a prophylactic antibiotic.Two groups were classified according to the dose of prophylactic antibiotics: a group using a single dose preoperatively (single-dose group) and a group using a preoperative single dose plus additional doses within 24 hours after surgery (multiple-dose group). The SSI rates between the two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Risk factors of SSIs were assessed using univariate and multivariable analysis. Results: There were 902 patients in the single-dose group and 330 patients in the multipledose group. After PSM, 320 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes except the length of hospital stay. SSI rates were not different between the two groups before and after PSM (before 2.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.890; after 0.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.505). In multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3, rectal surgery, intraoperative transfusion, and larger tumor size were identified as independent factors associated with SSI incidence. Conclusion A single preoperative dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be sufficient to prevent SSIs in elective MIS for colorectal cancer.

Background/Aims: Little is known about the practical clinical application of neuromodulators and psychiatric treatments in patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs). We investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Korean clinicians regarding the use of neuromodulators and psychiatric treatments for FGIDs. Methods: This prospective, online, cross-sectional study was conducted between May and August 2022. A questionnaire regarding the knowledge, attitude, and practice of neuromodulators and psychiatric treatments for FGIDs was developed and administered to primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists in university hospitals in Korea. Results: Overall, 451 clinicians from primary (n = 179, 39.7%), secondary (n = 113, 25.1%), and tertiary (n = 159, 35.3%) hospitals participated in the survey. Most of them considered that neuromodulators (98.7%) and psychiatric treatment (86.5%) were required for patients with FGIDs. However, approximately one-third of them did not prescribe neuromodulators, mainly due to unfamiliarity with the drugs, and only one-quarter considered psychiatric referral. Compared to gastroenterologists at university hospitals, primary care clinicians’ prescriptions had a lower rate (87.2% vs 64.2%, P < 0.001) and shorter duration of neuromodulator. The psychiatric referral rate was lower for primary care clinicians than for gastroenterologists at university hospitals (19.0% vs 34.2%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Knowledge, attitude, and practice levels regarding neuromodulators and psychiatric treatment among clinicians are inhomogeneous, and a knowledge gap exists between primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists at university hospitals. Encouraging ongoing education for Korean clinicians regarding the appropriate use of neuromodulators and psychiatric treatments in patients with FGIDs is suggested.