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/Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global health, exacerbated metabolic health issues, and altered lifestyle behaviors. This study examined the sex-specific impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the incidence of metabolic syndrome using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Methods: Data from the KNHANES VII (2018) and VIII (2019–2021), including 15,499 participants, were analyzed. The study population was stratified by sex, and further subdivisions were conducted based on the timeframe relative to the COVID-19 outbreak. Variables such as age, education level, household income, smoking status, and high-risk drinking were analyzed to assess their influence on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Results: The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome significantly increased from 28.11% before the outbreak to 29.69% after the outbreak. Both males and females reported significant increases in waist circumference and fasting glucose levels. Age and education level differentially influenced the prevalence of metabolic syndrome between the sex. Smoking was significantly associated with increased prevalence in males, whereas high-risk drinking was associated with increased prevalence in males and decreased prevalence in females. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the prevalence of metabolic syndrome with notable sex-specific differences. These findings highlight the need for sex-specific public health interventions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on metabolic health.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background/Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global health, exacerbated metabolic health issues, and altered lifestyle behaviors. This study examined the sex-specific impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the incidence of metabolic syndrome using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Methods: Data from the KNHANES VII (2018) and VIII (2019–2021), including 15,499 participants, were analyzed. The study population was stratified by sex, and further subdivisions were conducted based on the timeframe relative to the COVID-19 outbreak. Variables such as age, education level, household income, smoking status, and high-risk drinking were analyzed to assess their influence on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Results: The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome significantly increased from 28.11% before the outbreak to 29.69% after the outbreak. Both males and females reported significant increases in waist circumference and fasting glucose levels. Age and education level differentially influenced the prevalence of metabolic syndrome between the sex. Smoking was significantly associated with increased prevalence in males, whereas high-risk drinking was associated with increased prevalence in males and decreased prevalence in females. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the prevalence of metabolic syndrome with notable sex-specific differences. These findings highlight the need for sex-specific public health interventions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on metabolic health.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background/Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global health, exacerbated metabolic health issues, and altered lifestyle behaviors. This study examined the sex-specific impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the incidence of metabolic syndrome using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Methods: Data from the KNHANES VII (2018) and VIII (2019–2021), including 15,499 participants, were analyzed. The study population was stratified by sex, and further subdivisions were conducted based on the timeframe relative to the COVID-19 outbreak. Variables such as age, education level, household income, smoking status, and high-risk drinking were analyzed to assess their influence on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Results: The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome significantly increased from 28.11% before the outbreak to 29.69% after the outbreak. Both males and females reported significant increases in waist circumference and fasting glucose levels. Age and education level differentially influenced the prevalence of metabolic syndrome between the sex. Smoking was significantly associated with increased prevalence in males, whereas high-risk drinking was associated with increased prevalence in males and decreased prevalence in females. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the prevalence of metabolic syndrome with notable sex-specific differences. These findings highlight the need for sex-specific public health interventions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on metabolic health.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Objective: Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CA/R) lead to whole-body ischemia and reperfusion (IR) injury, causing multiple organ dysfunction, including ischemic spinal cord injury. The thoracic spinal cord levels are crucial for maintaining the sympathetic functions vital for life. This study examined blood-spinal cord barrier (BSCB) leakage and astrocyte endfeet (AEF) disruption and their effects on survival, physiological variables, and neuronal damage/death in the intermediate zone (IMZ) at the seventh thoracic spinal cord level after asphyxial CA/R in rats. Methods: The rats underwent whole-body IR injury by asphyxial CA/R. Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to assess the cumulative survival post-CA/R. The histological changes post-CA/R were evaluated using immunohistochemistry, histofluorescence, and double histofluorescence. Results: No significant differences in body weight, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate were found between the sham and CA/R groups post-CA/R. The survival rates in the CA/R group at 12, 24, and 48 hours were 62.58%, 36.37%, and 7.8%, respectively. Neuronal loss and BSCB leakage began 12 hours post-CA/R, increasing with time. Reactive astrogliosis appeared at 12 hours and increased, while AEF disruption around blood vessels was evident at 48 hours. Conclusion The survival rate declined significantly by 48 hours post-CA/R. Neuronal loss and BSCB leakage in the thoracic spinal cord IMZ was evident at 12 hours and significant by 48 hours, aligning with AEF disruption. Neuronal loss in the thoracic spinal cord IMZ post-CA/R may be related to BSCB leakage and AEF disruption.