Objectives: . Balloon dilation of the Eustachian tube (BDET) is widely recognized as a minimally invasive treatment for obstructive Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD). We employed a Delphi consensus methodology to develop recommendations for the clinical management of BDET in cases of obstructive ETD. Methods: . A Delphi panel consisting of 26 expert physicians specializing in otology participated in two rounds of anonymous, iterative questionnaires. Consensus was defined as agreement from ≥70% of the panelists on a recommendation, while disagreement was defined as <70% agreement. The responses from the Delphi study were analyzed using both the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance. Results: . The panel finally evaluated 26 topics, reaching agreement on 9 and failing to reach consensus on 17 after two rounds. While consensus was not achieved regarding the postoperative follow-up period, a duration of 12 months was most commonly adopted. The Valsalva maneuver and questionnaire responses were identified as the most agreed-upon postoperative assessment tools following BDET. Conclusion . Consensus was reached on several recommendations for managing BEDT in obstructive ETD. This agreement will guide future research aimed at defining standard postoperative management for BEDT.

Objectives: . Balloon dilation of the Eustachian tube (BDET) is widely recognized as a minimally invasive treatment for obstructive Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD). We employed a Delphi consensus methodology to develop recommendations for the clinical management of BDET in cases of obstructive ETD. Methods: . A Delphi panel consisting of 26 expert physicians specializing in otology participated in two rounds of anonymous, iterative questionnaires. Consensus was defined as agreement from ≥70% of the panelists on a recommendation, while disagreement was defined as <70% agreement. The responses from the Delphi study were analyzed using both the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance. Results: . The panel finally evaluated 26 topics, reaching agreement on 9 and failing to reach consensus on 17 after two rounds. While consensus was not achieved regarding the postoperative follow-up period, a duration of 12 months was most commonly adopted. The Valsalva maneuver and questionnaire responses were identified as the most agreed-upon postoperative assessment tools following BDET. Conclusion . Consensus was reached on several recommendations for managing BEDT in obstructive ETD. This agreement will guide future research aimed at defining standard postoperative management for BEDT.

Objectives: . Balloon dilation of the Eustachian tube (BDET) is widely recognized as a minimally invasive treatment for obstructive Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD). We employed a Delphi consensus methodology to develop recommendations for the clinical management of BDET in cases of obstructive ETD. Methods: . A Delphi panel consisting of 26 expert physicians specializing in otology participated in two rounds of anonymous, iterative questionnaires. Consensus was defined as agreement from ≥70% of the panelists on a recommendation, while disagreement was defined as <70% agreement. The responses from the Delphi study were analyzed using both the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance. Results: . The panel finally evaluated 26 topics, reaching agreement on 9 and failing to reach consensus on 17 after two rounds. While consensus was not achieved regarding the postoperative follow-up period, a duration of 12 months was most commonly adopted. The Valsalva maneuver and questionnaire responses were identified as the most agreed-upon postoperative assessment tools following BDET. Conclusion . Consensus was reached on several recommendations for managing BEDT in obstructive ETD. This agreement will guide future research aimed at defining standard postoperative management for BEDT.

Allergic rhinitis is the most common chronic disease worldwide. Various upper airway symptoms lower quality of life, and due to the recurrent symptoms, multiple treatments are usually attempted rather than one definitive treatment. There are alternatives to medical (medication-based) and nonmedical treatments. A guideline is needed to understand allergic rhinitis and develop an appropriate treatment plan. We have developed guidelines for medical treatment based on previous reports. The current guidelines herein are associated with the “KAAACI Evidence-Based Guidelines for Allergic Rhinitis in Korea, Part 1: Update in pharmacotherapy” in which we aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the medical treatment of allergic rhinitis. Part 2 focuses on nonpharmacological management, including allergen-specific immunotherapy, subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy, nasal saline irrigation, environmental management strategies, companion animal management, and nasal turbinate surgery. The evidence to support the treatment efficacy, safety, and selection has been systematically reviewed. However, larger controlled studies are needed to elevate the level of evidence to select rational non-medical therapeutic options for patients with allergic rhinitis.

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines for AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and a systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

Background and Objectives: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-STsegment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Methods: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. Results: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48– 0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48–2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). Conclusions Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.

Background/Aims: We aimed to assess the role of vitamin D supplementation in the response to pegylated interferon-α (PEG-IFN-α) plus ribavirin (RBV) treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC). Methods: Our study was a multi-center, randomized controlled trial in 11 hospitals. CHC patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to two groups namely, PEGIFN-α plus RBV (control group) or PEG-IFN-α plus RBV + vitamin D (800 IU daily) (vitamin D group). The primary end-point was the rate of sustained virologic response (SVR). Results: One hundred forty eight CHC patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Seventy-one patients received the PEG-IFN-α plus RBV and 77 patients received the PEG-IFN-α plus RBV + vitamin D. A total of 105 patients completed the study (control group, 47 vs. vitamin D group, 58). Baseline characteristics were mostly similar in both the groups. There was a modest but non-significant increase in SVR in the vitamin D group compared to the control group with the intention to treat analysis (64.0% vs. 49.3 %, p = 0.071) as well as in the per protocol analysis (control group vs. vitamin D group: 74.5% vs. 84.5%, p = 0.202). Fifty-two patients (73.2%) in the control group and 63 patients (81.8%) in the vitamin D group experienced at least one adverse event. The drop-out rate due to adverseeffects was not different between both groups (control group vs. vitamin D group: 19.7% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.111). Conclusions Vitamin D supplement did not increase SVR in treatment naïve patients with CHC irrespective of genotype.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the treatment of choice in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) patients. However, a substantial number of elderly patients refuse AVR and treated medically. We investigated their long-term prognosis. METHODS: From January 2005 to December 2016, we analyzed elderly patients with severe symptomatic AS who refused to have AVR. RESULTS: After screening of total 534 patients, we analyzed total 180 severe symptomatic AS patients (78±7 years old, 96 males). Hypertension was the most common cardiovascular risk factor (72%) and the most common symptom was dyspnea (66%). Calculated aortic stenosis area was 0.73±0.20 cm2 and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 57.8±12.2%. Total 102 patients died during follow-up period (39.1±31.0 months). One-, 3-, and 5-year all-cause mortality rate was 21.1±3.0%, 43.1±3.8%, and 56.5±4.2%, respectively. Of them, 87 died from cardiac causes, and 1-, 3-, and 5-year cardiac mortality rate was 18.0±2.9%, 38.2±3.8%, and 50.7±4.3%, respectively. Their all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality were significantly higher than those of controls. Univariate analysis showed that age, anemia, LVEF, and Log N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were significant parameters in all-cause mortality (p < 0.001, p=0.001, p=0.039, and p=0.047, respectively) and in cardiac mortality (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p=0.046, and p=0.026, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that age and anemia were significant prognostic factors for cardiac and all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly severe symptomatic AS patients who treated medically, their 1-, 3- and 5-year all-cause mortality rate was 21.1±3.0%, 43.1±3.8%, and 56.5±4.2%, respectively. Age and anemia were significant prognostic factors for cardiac and all-cause mortality.
Aged ; Anemia ; Aortic Valve Stenosis ; Aortic Valve ; Drug Therapy ; Dyspnea ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Hypertension ; Mass Screening ; Mortality ; Multivariate Analysis ; Natriuretic Peptide, Brain ; Prognosis ; Risk Factors ; Stroke Volume

PURPOSE: To determine whether a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) meets the goals of a low infection rate and long-term use in trauma patients. METHODS: From January 2016 to June 2018, the medical records of patients who underwent central venous catheterization at a level I trauma center were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected included age, sex, injury severity score, site of catheterization, place of catheterization (intensive care unit [ICU], emergency department, or general ward), type of catheter, length of hospital stay during catheterization, types of cultured bacteria, time to development of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), and complications. RESULTS: During the study period, 333 central vein catheters (CVC) were inserted with a total of 2,626 catheter-days and 97 PICCs were placed with a total of 2,227 catheter- days. The CLABSI rate was significantly lower in the PICC group when the analysis was limited to patients for whom the catheter was changed for the first time in the ICU after CVC insertion in the ER with similar indication and catheter insertion times (18.6 vs. 10.3/1,000 catheter-days, respectively, p<0.05). The median duration of catheter use was significantly longer in the PICC group than in the CVC group (16 vs. 6 days, respectively, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS The study results showed that the duration of catheter use was longer and the infection rate were lower in the PICC group than in the CVC group, suggesting that PICC is a safe and reliable alternative to conventional CVC.