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.

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: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to compare the genetic architecture of schizophrenia (SCZ) and bipolar disorder (BD) in a Korean population by analyzing polygenic risk scores (PRS) derived from large-scale psychiatric disorder genome-wide association study data, based on genetic information collected from SCZ, BD, and healthy control groups. Methods: The study included 713 Korean patients with SCZ, 1,317 with BD, 526 healthy controls. Genotyping was performed using the Korean Biobank Array. PRS-continuous shrinkage method was used to calculate the PRS. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine the association between SCZ or BD disorder and PRS after adjusting for sex. Results: ANCOVA revealed significant differences in PRS values by diagnosis for PRS for SCZ (F=215.281, p<0.001), PRS for BD (F=13.811, p<0.001), and PRS for major depressive disorder (F=6.042, p=0.002). Post-hoc analysis showed that PRS for SCZ was highest in SCZ, followed by BD, and healthy controls. PRS for BD was elevated in both BD and SCZ compared to healthy controls. Conclusion Our study revealed quantitative differences in genetic architecture between SCZ and BD compared to healthy controls, while also suggesting a shared genetic background between the two disorders.

Objective: The Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) is a relatively specific test for bipolar disorders designed to assess the main functioning problems experienced by patients. This brief instrument includes 24 items assessing impairment or disability in 6 domains of functioning: autonomy, occupational functioning, cognitive functioning, financial issues, interpersonal relationships, and leisure time. It has already been translated into standardized versions in several languages. The aim of this study is to measure the validity and reliability of the Korean version of FAST (K-FAST). Methods: A total of 209 bipolar disorder patients were recruited from 14 centers in Korea. K-FAST, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument Brief Form (WHOQOL-BREF) were administered, and psychometric analysis of the K-FAST was conducted. Results: The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the K-FAST was 0.95. Test-retest reliability analysis showed a strong correlation between the two measures assessed at a 1-week interval (ICC = 0.97; p ＜ 0.001). The K-FAST exhibited significant correlations with GAF (r = −0.771), WHOQOL-BREF (r = −0.326), YMRS (r = 0.509) and BDRS (r = 0.598). A strong negative correlation with GAF pointed to a reasonable degree of concurrent validity. Although the exploratory factor analysis showed four factors, the confirmatory factor analysis of questionnaires had a good fit for a six factors model (CFI = 0.925; TLI = 0.912; RMSEA = 0.078). Conclusion The K-FAST has good psychometric properties, good internal consistency, and can be applicable and acceptable to the Korean context.

Background/Aims: We evaluated the role of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based disease monitoring for elderly patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who received decitabine therapy. Methods: A total of 123 patients aged > 65 years with AML who received decitabine were eligible. We analyzed the dynamics of variant allele frequency (VAF) in 49 available follow-up samples after the fourth cycle of decitabine. The 58.6% VAF clearance (Δ, [VAF at diagnosis − VAF at follow-up] × 100 / VAF at diagnosis) was the optimal cut-off for predicting overall survival (OS). Results: The overall response rate was 34.1% (eight patients with complete remission [CR], six of CR with incomplete hematologic recovery, 22 with partial responses, and six with morphologic leukemia-free status). Responders (n = 42) had significantly better OS compared with non-responders (n = 42) (median, 15.3 months vs. 6.5 months; p < 0.001). Of the 49 patients available for follow-up targeted NGS analysis, 44 had trackable gene mutations. The median OS of patients with ΔVAF ≥ 58.6% (n=24) was significantly better than that of patients with ΔVAF < 58.6% (n = 19) (20.5 months vs. 9.8 months, p = 0.010). Moreover, responders with ΔVAF ≥ 58.6% (n = 20) had a significantly longer median OS compared with responders with VAF < 58.6% (n = 11) (22.5 months vs. 9.8 months, p = 0.004). Conclusions This study suggested that combining ΔVAF ≥ 58.6%, a molecular response, with morphologic and hematologic responses can more accurately predict OS in elderly AML patients after decitabine therapy.

Background: Positron emission tomography (PET) viability scan is used to determine whether patients with a myocardial scar on single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) may need revascularization. However, the clinical utility of revascularization decision-making guided by PET viability imaging has not been proven yet. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of PET to determine revascularization on clinical outcomes. Methods: Between September 2012 and May 2021, 53 patients (37 males; mean age = 64 ± 11 years) with a myocardial scar on MIBI SPECT who underwent PET viability test were analyzed in this study. The primary outcome was a temporal change in echocardiographic findings.The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: Viable myocardium was presented by PET imaging in 29 (54.7%) patients.Revascularization was performed in 26 (49.1%) patients, including 18 (34.0%) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and 8 (15.1%) with coronary artery bypass grafting.There were significant improvements in echocardiographic findings in the revascularization group and the viable myocardium group. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the revascularization group than in the medical therapy-alone group (19.2% vs. 44.4%, log-rank P = 0.002) irrespective of viable (21.4% vs. 46.7%, log-rank P = 0.025) or non-viable myocardium (16.7% vs. 41.7%, log-rank P = 0.046). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the PCI group than in the medical therapy-alone group (11.1% vs. 44.4%, log-rank P < 0.001). Conclusion Revascularization improved left ventricular systolic function and survival of patients with a myocardial scar on SPECT scans, irrespective of myocardial viability on PET scans.