Despite widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine use, research on the association between vaccines and cerebrovascular venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) in diverse populations is limited. This study aimed to address this gap. Data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database (1968–2024; total reports = 8,909,484) were used.Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and information components (ICs) were calculated to assess the association between each drug and CVST. In total, 851 cases were identified as vaccineassociated CVST, of which 527 (61.93%) occurred in female patients. Only Ad5-vectored COVID-19 vaccines had the highest ROR and IC value with CVST (ROR, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 4.34–5.28; IC, 2.15). The risk of CVST increased with age, with the 45–64-years age group having an IC of 1.35, while the 65 years and older group had a higher IC of 2.08.The findings highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the potential risks of CVST and prioritize rigorous monitoring and research to ensure patient safety.

Despite widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine use, research on the association between vaccines and cerebrovascular venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) in diverse populations is limited. This study aimed to address this gap. Data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database (1968–2024; total reports = 8,909,484) were used.Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and information components (ICs) were calculated to assess the association between each drug and CVST. In total, 851 cases were identified as vaccineassociated CVST, of which 527 (61.93%) occurred in female patients. Only Ad5-vectored COVID-19 vaccines had the highest ROR and IC value with CVST (ROR, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 4.34–5.28; IC, 2.15). The risk of CVST increased with age, with the 45–64-years age group having an IC of 1.35, while the 65 years and older group had a higher IC of 2.08.The findings highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the potential risks of CVST and prioritize rigorous monitoring and research to ensure patient safety.

Despite widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine use, research on the association between vaccines and cerebrovascular venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) in diverse populations is limited. This study aimed to address this gap. Data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database (1968–2024; total reports = 8,909,484) were used.Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and information components (ICs) were calculated to assess the association between each drug and CVST. In total, 851 cases were identified as vaccineassociated CVST, of which 527 (61.93%) occurred in female patients. Only Ad5-vectored COVID-19 vaccines had the highest ROR and IC value with CVST (ROR, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 4.34–5.28; IC, 2.15). The risk of CVST increased with age, with the 45–64-years age group having an IC of 1.35, while the 65 years and older group had a higher IC of 2.08.The findings highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the potential risks of CVST and prioritize rigorous monitoring and research to ensure patient safety.

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.

Despite widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine use, research on the association between vaccines and cerebrovascular venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) in diverse populations is limited. This study aimed to address this gap. Data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database (1968–2024; total reports = 8,909,484) were used.Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and information components (ICs) were calculated to assess the association between each drug and CVST. In total, 851 cases were identified as vaccineassociated CVST, of which 527 (61.93%) occurred in female patients. Only Ad5-vectored COVID-19 vaccines had the highest ROR and IC value with CVST (ROR, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 4.34–5.28; IC, 2.15). The risk of CVST increased with age, with the 45–64-years age group having an IC of 1.35, while the 65 years and older group had a higher IC of 2.08.The findings highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the potential risks of CVST and prioritize rigorous monitoring and research to ensure patient safety.

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.

This report presents the latest statistics on the stroke population in South Korea, sourced from the Clinical Research Collaborations for Stroke in Korea-National Institute for Health (CRCS-K-NIH), a comprehensive, nationwide, multicenter stroke registry. The Korean cohort, unlike western populations, shows a male-to-female ratio of 1.5, attributed to lower risk factors in Korean women. The average ages for men and women are 67 and 73 years, respectively.Hypertension is the most common risk factor (67%), consistent with global trends, but there is a higher prevalence of diabetes (35%) and smoking (21%). The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (19%) is lower than in western populations, suggesting effective prevention strategies in the general population. A high incidence of large artery atherosclerosis (38%) is observed, likely due to prevalent intracranial arterial disease in East Asians and advanced imaging techniques.There has been a decrease in intravenous thrombolysis rates, from 12% in 2017–2019 to 10% in 2021, with no improvements in door-to-needle and door-to-puncture times, worsened by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. While the use of aspirin plus clopidogrel for noncardioembolic stroke and direct oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation is well-established, the application of direct oral anticoagulants for non-atrial fibrillation cardioembolic strokes in the acute phase requires further research. The incidence of early neurological deterioration (13%) and the cumulative incidence of recurrent stroke at 3 months (3%) align with global figures. Favorable outcomes at 3 months (63%) are comparable internationally, yet the lack of improvement in dependency at 3 months highlights the need for advancements in acute stroke care.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.