Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

We report a case of cytomegalovirus retinitis in a hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipient during valganciclovir pre-emptive therapy followed by maribavir. Analysis of UL97 mutation revealed a C480F substitution associated with high maribavir resistance and low ganciclovir resistance.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background/Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global health, exacerbated metabolic health issues, and altered lifestyle behaviors. This study examined the sex-specific impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the incidence of metabolic syndrome using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Methods: Data from the KNHANES VII (2018) and VIII (2019–2021), including 15,499 participants, were analyzed. The study population was stratified by sex, and further subdivisions were conducted based on the timeframe relative to the COVID-19 outbreak. Variables such as age, education level, household income, smoking status, and high-risk drinking were analyzed to assess their influence on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Results: The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome significantly increased from 28.11% before the outbreak to 29.69% after the outbreak. Both males and females reported significant increases in waist circumference and fasting glucose levels. Age and education level differentially influenced the prevalence of metabolic syndrome between the sex. Smoking was significantly associated with increased prevalence in males, whereas high-risk drinking was associated with increased prevalence in males and decreased prevalence in females. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the prevalence of metabolic syndrome with notable sex-specific differences. These findings highlight the need for sex-specific public health interventions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on metabolic health.

Background/Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global health, exacerbated metabolic health issues, and altered lifestyle behaviors. This study examined the sex-specific impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the incidence of metabolic syndrome using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Methods: Data from the KNHANES VII (2018) and VIII (2019–2021), including 15,499 participants, were analyzed. The study population was stratified by sex, and further subdivisions were conducted based on the timeframe relative to the COVID-19 outbreak. Variables such as age, education level, household income, smoking status, and high-risk drinking were analyzed to assess their influence on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Results: The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome significantly increased from 28.11% before the outbreak to 29.69% after the outbreak. Both males and females reported significant increases in waist circumference and fasting glucose levels. Age and education level differentially influenced the prevalence of metabolic syndrome between the sex. Smoking was significantly associated with increased prevalence in males, whereas high-risk drinking was associated with increased prevalence in males and decreased prevalence in females. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the prevalence of metabolic syndrome with notable sex-specific differences. These findings highlight the need for sex-specific public health interventions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on metabolic health.

Background/Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global health, exacerbated metabolic health issues, and altered lifestyle behaviors. This study examined the sex-specific impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the incidence of metabolic syndrome using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Methods: Data from the KNHANES VII (2018) and VIII (2019–2021), including 15,499 participants, were analyzed. The study population was stratified by sex, and further subdivisions were conducted based on the timeframe relative to the COVID-19 outbreak. Variables such as age, education level, household income, smoking status, and high-risk drinking were analyzed to assess their influence on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Results: The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome significantly increased from 28.11% before the outbreak to 29.69% after the outbreak. Both males and females reported significant increases in waist circumference and fasting glucose levels. Age and education level differentially influenced the prevalence of metabolic syndrome between the sex. Smoking was significantly associated with increased prevalence in males, whereas high-risk drinking was associated with increased prevalence in males and decreased prevalence in females. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the prevalence of metabolic syndrome with notable sex-specific differences. These findings highlight the need for sex-specific public health interventions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on metabolic health.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

We report a case of cytomegalovirus retinitis in a hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipient during valganciclovir pre-emptive therapy followed by maribavir. Analysis of UL97 mutation revealed a C480F substitution associated with high maribavir resistance and low ganciclovir resistance.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.