Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

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.

Background: This study aims to investigate the trend of doctor shopping among patients with rotator cuff tear (RCT) before undergoing surgery and to examine the relevance of these findings to the public. Methods: A survey was conducted of 326 patients from 10 hospitals (male, 176; female, 150) who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) for symptomatic RCT between September 2019 and February 2020. A questionnaire was used to obtain data regarding the type of medical care service, medical institutions visited before surgery, number of treatments received, and cost of treatment. Results: A total of 326 patients (87%) received treatment at least once at another medical institution before visiting the hospital where the surgery was performed. Patients visited an average of 9.4 health providers or physicians for shoulder pain before visiting the hospital where surgery was performed. Among the 326 patients, 148 (45%) visited more than two medical institutions and spent an average of 641,983 Korean won (KRW; $466, 50,000–5,000,000 KRW) before surgery. Medical expenses before surgery were proportional to the number of medical institutions visited (P=0.002), symptom duration (P=0.002), and initial visual analog scale (VAS) pain score (P=0.007) but were not associated with sex, age, VAS pain score immediately before surgery, or RCT size. Conclusions Medical expense before ARCR was associated with the severity of preoperative pain and duration of symptoms. After onset of shoulder symptoms, patients should visit as soon as possible a hospital that has surgeons who specialize in shoulder repair to prevent unnecessary medical expense and proper treatment.Level of evidence: IV.

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.

Background: This study aims to investigate the trend of doctor shopping among patients with rotator cuff tear (RCT) before undergoing surgery and to examine the relevance of these findings to the public. Methods: A survey was conducted of 326 patients from 10 hospitals (male, 176; female, 150) who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) for symptomatic RCT between September 2019 and February 2020. A questionnaire was used to obtain data regarding the type of medical care service, medical institutions visited before surgery, number of treatments received, and cost of treatment. Results: A total of 326 patients (87%) received treatment at least once at another medical institution before visiting the hospital where the surgery was performed. Patients visited an average of 9.4 health providers or physicians for shoulder pain before visiting the hospital where surgery was performed. Among the 326 patients, 148 (45%) visited more than two medical institutions and spent an average of 641,983 Korean won (KRW; $466, 50,000–5,000,000 KRW) before surgery. Medical expenses before surgery were proportional to the number of medical institutions visited (P=0.002), symptom duration (P=0.002), and initial visual analog scale (VAS) pain score (P=0.007) but were not associated with sex, age, VAS pain score immediately before surgery, or RCT size. Conclusions Medical expense before ARCR was associated with the severity of preoperative pain and duration of symptoms. After onset of shoulder symptoms, patients should visit as soon as possible a hospital that has surgeons who specialize in shoulder repair to prevent unnecessary medical expense and proper treatment.Level of evidence: IV.

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: The use of gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen-11 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET/CT) is becoming increasingly common among men with prostate cancer (PCa). However, it remains uncertain which patients will derive the most benefit, and there is a scarcity of real-world data regarding its impact on altering treatment plans. This study investigated which patients would most benefit from Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET/CT, focusing on detection rates and changes in treatment strategies, drawing from a single-center experience. Materials and Methods: In total, 230 men with PCa who underwent Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET/CT between November 2021 and August 2022 were included in this retrospective study. The patients were classified into 5 groups based on their disease status: group 1, further work-up for high-risk localized PCa; group 2, de novo metastatic PCa; group 3, biochemical recurrence after definitive treatment; group 4, castration-resistant PCa; group 5, others. The positivity rate, positive lesions, predictive value of lymph node metastases, comparison with conventional images, and treatment changes after Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET/CT were analyzed in each group. Results: Of the 230 patients, 40 (17.4%), 20 (8.7%), 77 (33.5%), 76 (33.0%), and 17 (7.4%) were classified into groups 1–5, respectively. Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET/CT showed lesions in 74.8% of patients, and the optimal cutoff value for PSA was 1.99 ng/mL. Lesions not observed on conventional imaging were found in 62 patients (33.2%). In 38 patients (13.5%), treatment was changed due to Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET/CT. Conclusions These real-world data suggest that Ga-68 PSMA-11 PET/CT may be clinically useful for various disease conditions, as substantial stage migration and subsequent treatment changes occur in men with PCa. However, the prognostic impact of this modality remains unclear; thus, a well-designed prospective study is needed to address this issue.