Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Purpose: This methodological study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Self-Care of Coronary Heart Disease Inventory version 3 (SC-CHDI v3) in a Korean context. Methods: The SC-CHDI v3 was translated into Korean following a rigorous translation process. Participants were 452 patients who had experienced coronary heart disease (CHD), all recruited from a tertiary hospital in Korea. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test construct validity. Concurrent validity was examined by correlating scores from the Korean version of the SC-CHDI v3 with those from the Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale. Internal consistency was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Results: The Korean version of the SC-CHDI v3 consists of 21 items, excluding two from the original instrument. The self-care maintenance subscale identified a two-factor structure: “treatment adherence” and “health-promoting behaviors.” The goodness-of-fit indices were satisfied: χ2 = 18.19, p = .110, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .95, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .04. The self-care monitoring subscale consisted of a one-dimensional structure (“monitoring behaviors”) and the goodness-of-fit indices were satisfied: χ2 = 19.19, p = .059, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, and SRMR = .04. The self-care management subscales had a two-factor structure of “consulting behaviors” and “problem-solving behaviors.” The goodness-of-fit indices were satisfied: χ2 = 16.44, p = .037, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, and SRMR = .03. Scores from the Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale showed a positive correlation with the Korean version of SC-CHDI v3 subscales. Reliability estimates were ≥ .80 for all subscales except for the self-care maintenance subscale. Conclusions The Korean version of the SC-CHDI v3 consists of 21 items in 3 subscales and is a valid and reliable instrument. Therefore, healthcare providers can effectively utilize it to assess the self-care levels of patients with CHD.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Purpose: This methodological study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Self-Care of Coronary Heart Disease Inventory version 3 (SC-CHDI v3) in a Korean context. Methods: The SC-CHDI v3 was translated into Korean following a rigorous translation process. Participants were 452 patients who had experienced coronary heart disease (CHD), all recruited from a tertiary hospital in Korea. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test construct validity. Concurrent validity was examined by correlating scores from the Korean version of the SC-CHDI v3 with those from the Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale. Internal consistency was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Results: The Korean version of the SC-CHDI v3 consists of 21 items, excluding two from the original instrument. The self-care maintenance subscale identified a two-factor structure: “treatment adherence” and “health-promoting behaviors.” The goodness-of-fit indices were satisfied: χ2 = 18.19, p = .110, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .95, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .04. The self-care monitoring subscale consisted of a one-dimensional structure (“monitoring behaviors”) and the goodness-of-fit indices were satisfied: χ2 = 19.19, p = .059, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, and SRMR = .04. The self-care management subscales had a two-factor structure of “consulting behaviors” and “problem-solving behaviors.” The goodness-of-fit indices were satisfied: χ2 = 16.44, p = .037, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, and SRMR = .03. Scores from the Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale showed a positive correlation with the Korean version of SC-CHDI v3 subscales. Reliability estimates were ≥ .80 for all subscales except for the self-care maintenance subscale. Conclusions The Korean version of the SC-CHDI v3 consists of 21 items in 3 subscales and is a valid and reliable instrument. Therefore, healthcare providers can effectively utilize it to assess the self-care levels of patients with CHD.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Purpose: This methodological study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Self-Care of Coronary Heart Disease Inventory version 3 (SC-CHDI v3) in a Korean context. Methods: The SC-CHDI v3 was translated into Korean following a rigorous translation process. Participants were 452 patients who had experienced coronary heart disease (CHD), all recruited from a tertiary hospital in Korea. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test construct validity. Concurrent validity was examined by correlating scores from the Korean version of the SC-CHDI v3 with those from the Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale. Internal consistency was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Results: The Korean version of the SC-CHDI v3 consists of 21 items, excluding two from the original instrument. The self-care maintenance subscale identified a two-factor structure: “treatment adherence” and “health-promoting behaviors.” The goodness-of-fit indices were satisfied: χ2 = 18.19, p = .110, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .95, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .04. The self-care monitoring subscale consisted of a one-dimensional structure (“monitoring behaviors”) and the goodness-of-fit indices were satisfied: χ2 = 19.19, p = .059, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, and SRMR = .04. The self-care management subscales had a two-factor structure of “consulting behaviors” and “problem-solving behaviors.” The goodness-of-fit indices were satisfied: χ2 = 16.44, p = .037, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, and SRMR = .03. Scores from the Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale showed a positive correlation with the Korean version of SC-CHDI v3 subscales. Reliability estimates were ≥ .80 for all subscales except for the self-care maintenance subscale. Conclusions The Korean version of the SC-CHDI v3 consists of 21 items in 3 subscales and is a valid and reliable instrument. Therefore, healthcare providers can effectively utilize it to assess the self-care levels of patients with CHD.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.