Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only well-established and widely used agent for dissolving gallstones. Epidemiological and animal studies have suggested potential therapeutic benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for dissolving cholesterol gallstones. We evaluated whether adding PUFA to UDCA improves gallstone dissolution in patients with cholesterol gallstones. Methods: This randomized, prospective, preliminary clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of UDCA plus PUFA combination therapy (combination group) with those of UDCA monotherapy (monotherapy group). The inclusion criteria were a gallstone diameter ≤15 mm on ultra-sonography, radiolucent stones on plain X-ray, and no to mild symptoms. Gallstone dissolution rates, response rates, and adverse events were evaluated. Results: Of the 59 screened patients, 45 patients completed treatment (24 and 21 in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively). The gallstone dissolution rate tended to be higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (45.7% vs 9.9%, p=0.070). The radiological response rate was also significantly higher in the combination group (90.5% vs 41.7%, p=0.007). In both groups, dissolution and response rates were higher in patients with gallbladder sludge than in those with distinct stones. Four adverse events (two in each group) were observed, none of which were study drug-related or led to drug discontinuation. The incidence of these adverse events was similar in both groups (combination vs monotherapy: 9.5% vs 8.3%, p=0.890). Conclusions UDCA plus PUFA therapy dissolves cholesterol gallstones more effectively than UDCA monotherapy, without significant complications. Further prospective, large-scale studies of this combination therapy are warranted.

Background/Aims: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common gastrointestinal disease associated with hospitalization. With the increase in its incidence, AP has become a greater burden on healthcare resources. Early identification of patients with mild AP can facilitate the appropriate use of resources. We aimed to investigate the ability of inflammatory markers, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as various scoring systems to differentiate mild AP from more severe diseases. Methods: We retrospectively investigated patients hospitalized with AP, for whom severity assessment and clinical course confirmation were possible. Inflammatory markers were measured at admission, and CRP levels were measured 24 hours after admission (CRP2). Predictive values were calculated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and logistic regression model analysis. Results: Of 103 patients with AP, 42 (40.8%) were diagnosed with mild AP according to the revised Atlanta classification. Based on the AUROC, IL-6 (0.755, p<0.001), CRP2 (0.787, p<0.001), and computed tomography severity index (CTSI) (0.851, p<0.001) were useful predictors of mild AP. With standard cutoff values, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83.3%, 62.3%, and 70.9% for IL-6 (<50 pg/mL), and 78.6%, 63.9%, and 69.9% for CRP2 (<50 mg/L), respectively. The AUROC of IL-6 and CRP2 were significantly higher than those of other inflammatory markers and were not significantly different from that of CTSI. Conclusions IL-6, CRP2, and CTSI are helpful for early differentiation of AP severity. Among inflammatory markers, IL-6 has the advantage of early prediction of mild pancreatitis at the time of admission.

Objective: Biliary decompression through bile drainage is a key treatment for common bile duct obstruction with cholangitis. However, the effectiveness of early interventions has not been studied sufficiently in Korea. This study investigated the effectiveness of fast-track biliary decompression. Methods: A group of patients diagnosed with common bile duct obstruction with cholangitis between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, was reviewed retrospectively. We divided them into two groups: before and after the implementation of fast-track biliary decompression. The following items were analyzed in the two groups: time to intervention, number of hospital days, length of stay in the emergency department, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Results: Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, 418 patients were admitted for common bile duct obstruction, and a total of 369 patients were included in this study. Of these, 168 patients visited the hospital prior to implementation of the treatment, and 201 patients visited after implementation. The time to intervention was 6.1 (4.2-11.0) hours in the fast-track group, which was about 9 hours shorter than the other group (P<0.001). There was no statistical difference in the number of hospital days, emergency department length of stay, and ICU admissions (P=0.535, P=0.034, P=0.322). Conclusion The time to intervention was shortened significantly in the fast-track group. However, we did not observe a significant improvement in patient prognosis. It may be possible that the procedure time may need to be shortened for a better prognosis. This should be investigated in future studies.

Background and Objectives: The outcome benefits of β-blockers in chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) have not been fully assessed. We evaluated the prognostic impact of β-blockers on patients with chronic CAD after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: A total of 3,075 patients with chronic CAD were included from the Grand DrugEluting Stent registry. We analyzed β-blocker prescriptions, including doses and types, in each patient at 3-month intervals from discharge. After propensity score matching, 1,170 pairs of patients (β-blockers vs. no β-blockers) were derived. Primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI). We further analyzed the outcome benefits of different doses (low-, medium-, and high-dose) and types (conventional or vasodilating) of β-blockers. Results: During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3.1 (3.0–3.1) years, 134 (5.7%) patients experienced primary outcome. Overall, β-blockers demonstrated no significant benefit in primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–1.24), all-cause death (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60–1.25), and MI (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.49–3.15). In subgroup analysis, β-blockers were associated with a lower risk of all-cause death in patients with previous MI and/ or revascularization (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14–0.99) (p for interaction=0.045). No significant associations were found for the clinical outcomes with different doses and types of β-blockers. Conclusions Overall, β-blocker therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with chronic CAD undergoing PCI. Limited mortality benefit of β-blockers may exist for patients with previous MI and/or revascularization.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.

Background/Aims: Recent data indicate the presence of liver enzyme abnormalities in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to evaluate the clinical features and treatment outcomes of COVID-19 patients with abnormal liver enzymes. Methods: We performed a retrospective, multicenter study of 874 COVID-19 patients admitted to five tertiary hospitals from February 20 to April 14, 2020. Data on clinical features, laboratory parameters, medications, and treatment outcomes were collected until April 30, 2020, and compared between patients with normal and abnormal aminotransferases. Results: Abnormal aminotransferase levels were observed in 362 patients (41.1%), of which 94 out of 130 (72.3%) and 268 out of 744 (36.0%) belonged to the severe and non-severe COVID-19 categories, respectively. The odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for male patients, patients with a higher body mass index, patients with severe COVID-19 status, and patients with lower platelet counts were 1.500 (1.029 to 2.184, p=0.035), 1.097 (1.012 to 1.189, p=0.024), 2.377 (1.458 to 3.875, p=0.001), and 0.995 (0.993 to 0.998, p>0.001), respectively, indicating an independent association of these variables with elevated aminotransferase levels. Lopinavir/ ritonavir and antibiotic use increased the odds ratio of abnormal aminotransferase levels after admission (1.832 and 2.646, respectively, both p<0.05). The median time to release from quarantine was longer (22 days vs 26 days, p=0.001) and the mortality rate was higher (13.0% vs 2.9%, p<0.001) in patients with abnormal aminotransferase levels. Conclusions Abnormal aminotransferase levels are common in COVID-19 patients and are associated with poor clinical outcomes. Multivariate analysis of patients with normal aminotransferase levels on admission showed that the use of lopinavir/ritonavir and antibiotics was associated with abnormal aminotransferase levels; thus, careful monitoring is needed.