RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the primary treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms, constituting 70%-80% of interventions. Despite initial benefits, long-term studies show increased mortality. Using nationwide data, this study assesses outcomes of EVAR, open aortic repair (OAR), and EVAR explantation (EE) in Korea, while exploring characteristics of late open conversion, including the rising EE incidence. METHODS: Employing the National Health Insurance Service database, covering health-related data for nearly 50 million Koreans, the study spanned from 2002 to 2020. Patients with AAA diagnoses (I71.3 or I71.4) were categorized into OAR, EVAR, and EE groups based on procedural codes. Statistical analyses, including t-tests, Fisher's exact tests, Cox proportional hazard models, and multivariate Cox regression, assessed baseline characteristics, mortality risks, and factors within the EE group. RESULTS: The analysis encompassed 26,195 patients, with 66.19% in the EVAR group, 31.87% in the OAR group, and 1.94% in the EE group. EVAR cases steadily increased from 2002 to 2018. Survival rates favored EVAR, followed by OAR and EE. 30-day survival was lower in EE than EVAR. Multivariate analysis for EE revealed no risk factors for 30-days survival but identified age, chronic kidney disease, high Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, and less than 6 months since EVAR as risk factors for overall mortality. CONCLUSION: Rising EE trends with increased EVAR adoption, particularly evident in the Korean dataset, underscore inferior outcomes. This highlights the critical need for strategic initial treatment decisions and timely interventions to enhance overall results and mitigate the unfavorable EE incidence.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The widely employed Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) scoring system, designed for assessing deceased donors (DD), plays a pivotal role in predicting graft function post kidney transplantation (KT). Given the dynamic nature of renal function, including serum creatinine (sCr), in managing DDs, it remains uncertain optimal timing to use KDPI for assessing postoperative graft function. METHODS: In this retrospective review, we assessed 246 DDs who were managed within a donor management program from January 2010 to December 2021. We collected sCr values for KDPI scoring at admission, peak, and last measurements before KT. Recipient data included occurrence of slow graft function (SGF), delayed graft function (DGF), and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at one-year post-transplantation (1 Y). Using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and Pearson correlation analyses, we explored correlations of KDPI score (admission, peak, last) with graft function (SGF, DGF, GFR 1 Y). RESULTS: The average age of DDs and recipients was 49.78 ± 13.37 and 52.54 ± 10.49 years, respectively, with mean KDPI values at admission, peak, and last measurements of 62.36 ± 25.44, 66.94 ± 24.73, and 63.75 ± 25.80. After transplantation, SGF was observed in 81 recipients (32.9%) and DGF in 32 (13.0%). For SGF, the Area Under the Curve (AUC) from ROC analysis were 0.684 (95% CI, 0.615-0.753; P < .001) at admission, 0.691 (0.623-0.759; P < .001) at peak, and 0.697 (0.630-0.765; P < .001) at the last measurement. In predicting DGF, the corresponding AUC values were 0.746 (0.661-0.831; P < .001) at admission, 0.724 (0.637-0.810; P < .001) at peak, and 0.721 (0.643-0.809; P < .001) at the last. Moreover, KDPI scores at all time points-admission, peak, and last-moderately correlated with GFR 1 Y (Râ¯=â¯-0.426, -0.423, -0.417). CONCLUSION: KDPI measurements at all time points, particularly admission, would be more effective in predicting DGF in DDKT.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify challenges and potential improvements in Korea's medical education accreditation process according to the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019). Meta-evaluation was conducted to survey the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders, including self-assessment committee members, site visit committee members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using surveys sent to 40 medical schools. The 332 participants included self-assessment committee members, site visit team members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. The t-test, one-way analysis of variance and the chi-square test were used to analyze and compare opinions on medical education accreditation between the categories of participants. RESULTS: Site visit committee members placed greater importance on the necessity of accreditation than faculty members. A shared positive view on accreditation's role in improving educational quality was seen among self-evaluation committee members and professors. Administrative staff highly regarded the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation's reliability and objectivity, unlike the self-evaluation committee members. Site visit committee members positively perceived the clarity of accreditation standards, differing from self-assessment committee members. Administrative staff were most optimistic about implementing standards. However, the accreditation process encountered challenges, especially in duplicating content and preparing self-evaluation reports. Finally, perceptions regarding the accuracy of final site visit reports varied significantly between the self-evaluation committee members and the site visit committee members. CONCLUSION: This study revealed diverse views on medical education accreditation, highlighting the need for improved communication, expectation alignment, and stakeholder collaboration to refine the accreditation process and quality.