Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Purpose: With the revision of the Organ and Transplantation Act in 2018, the hand has become legal as an area of transplantable organs in Korea. In January 2021, the first hand allotransplantation since legalization was successfully performed, and we have performed a total of three successful hand transplantation since then. By comparing and incorporating our experiences, this study aimed to provide a comprehensive reconstructive solution for hand amputation in Korea. Materials and Methods: Recipients were selected through a structured preoperative evaluation, and hand transplantations were performed at the distal forearm level. Postoperatively, patients were treated with three-drug immunosuppressive regimen, and functional outcomes were monitored. Results: The hand transplantations were performed without intraoperative complications. All patients had partial skin necrosis and underwent additional surgical procedures in 2 months after transplantation. After additional operations, no further severe complications were observed. Also, patients developed acute rejection within 3 months of surgery, but all resolved within 2 weeks after steroid pulse therapy. Motor and sensory function improved dramatically, and patients were very satisfied with the appearance and function of their transplanted hands. Conclusion Hand transplantation is a viable reconstructive option, and patients have shown positive functional and psychological outcomes. Although this study has limitations, such as the small number of patients and short follow-up period, we should focus on continued recovery of hand function, and be careful not to develop side effects from immunosuppressive drugs. Through the present study, we will continue to strive for a bright future regarding hand transplantation in Korea.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most prevalent inflammatory skin condition, with approximately 80% of cases originating in childhood and some emerging in adulthood. In South Korea, the estimated prevalence of AD ranges between 10% and 20% in children and 1% and 3% in adults. Severe/recalcitrant AD manifests as a chronic, relapsing skin disorder, persisting with uncontrolled symptoms even after topical steroid treatment. Corticosteroids and systemic immunosuppression, conventionally the standard care for difficult-to-treat diseases, cause numerous undesirable side effects. When AD persists despite topical steroid application, systemic therapies like cyclosporine or systemic steroids become the second treatment strategy. The desire for targeted treatments, along with an enhanced understanding of AD’s pathophysiology, has spurred novel therapeutic development. Recent advances introduce novel systemic options, such as biological agents and small-molecule therapy, tailored to treat severe or recalcitrant AD. Notably, dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting interleukin 4 and 13, marked a transformative breakthrough upon gaining approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017, leading to a paradigm shift in the systemic treatment of AD. Furthermore, both dupilumab and Janus kinase inhibitors, including baricitinib, abrocitinib, and tofacitinib, now approved by the Korean FDA, have established their applicability in clinical practice. These innovative therapeutic agents have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes, effectively addressing moderate to severe AD with fewer side reactions than those associated with previous systemic immunosuppressants. This review summarizes the latest advancements and evidence regarding systemic treatments for AD, including newly approved drugs in Korea.