Background: s/Aims: Non-invasive models stratifying clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) are limited. Herein, we developed a new non-invasive model for predicting CSPH in patients with compensated cirrhosis and investigated whether carvedilol can prevent hepatic decompensation in patients with high-risk CSPH stratified using the new model. Methods: Non-invasive risk factors of CSPH were identified via systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving patients with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). A new non-invasive model was validated for various performance aspects in three cohorts, i.e., a multicenter HVPG cohort, a follow-up cohort, and a carvediloltreating cohort. Results: In the meta-analysis with six studies (n=819), liver stiffness measurement and platelet count were identified as independent risk factors for CSPH and were used to develop the new “CSPH risk” model. In the HVPG cohort (n=151), the new model accurately predicted CSPH with cutoff values of 0 and –0.68 for ruling in and out CSPH, respectively. In the follow-up cohort (n=1,102), the cumulative incidences of decompensation events significantly differed using the cutoff values of <–0.68 (low-risk), –0.68 to 0 (medium-risk), and >0 (high-risk). In the carvediloltreated cohort, patients with high-risk CSPH treated with carvedilol (n=81) had lower rates of decompensation events than non-selective beta-blockers untreated patients with high-risk CSPH (n=613 before propensity score matching [PSM], n=162 after PSM). Conclusions Treatment with carvedilol significantly reduces the risk of hepatic decompensation in patients with high-risk CSPH stratified by the new model.

Background: s/Aims: Non-invasive models stratifying clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) are limited. Herein, we developed a new non-invasive model for predicting CSPH in patients with compensated cirrhosis and investigated whether carvedilol can prevent hepatic decompensation in patients with high-risk CSPH stratified using the new model. Methods: Non-invasive risk factors of CSPH were identified via systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving patients with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). A new non-invasive model was validated for various performance aspects in three cohorts, i.e., a multicenter HVPG cohort, a follow-up cohort, and a carvediloltreating cohort. Results: In the meta-analysis with six studies (n=819), liver stiffness measurement and platelet count were identified as independent risk factors for CSPH and were used to develop the new “CSPH risk” model. In the HVPG cohort (n=151), the new model accurately predicted CSPH with cutoff values of 0 and –0.68 for ruling in and out CSPH, respectively. In the follow-up cohort (n=1,102), the cumulative incidences of decompensation events significantly differed using the cutoff values of <–0.68 (low-risk), –0.68 to 0 (medium-risk), and >0 (high-risk). In the carvediloltreated cohort, patients with high-risk CSPH treated with carvedilol (n=81) had lower rates of decompensation events than non-selective beta-blockers untreated patients with high-risk CSPH (n=613 before propensity score matching [PSM], n=162 after PSM). Conclusions Treatment with carvedilol significantly reduces the risk of hepatic decompensation in patients with high-risk CSPH stratified by the new model.

Background: s/Aims: Non-invasive models stratifying clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) are limited. Herein, we developed a new non-invasive model for predicting CSPH in patients with compensated cirrhosis and investigated whether carvedilol can prevent hepatic decompensation in patients with high-risk CSPH stratified using the new model. Methods: Non-invasive risk factors of CSPH were identified via systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving patients with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). A new non-invasive model was validated for various performance aspects in three cohorts, i.e., a multicenter HVPG cohort, a follow-up cohort, and a carvediloltreating cohort. Results: In the meta-analysis with six studies (n=819), liver stiffness measurement and platelet count were identified as independent risk factors for CSPH and were used to develop the new “CSPH risk” model. In the HVPG cohort (n=151), the new model accurately predicted CSPH with cutoff values of 0 and –0.68 for ruling in and out CSPH, respectively. In the follow-up cohort (n=1,102), the cumulative incidences of decompensation events significantly differed using the cutoff values of <–0.68 (low-risk), –0.68 to 0 (medium-risk), and >0 (high-risk). In the carvediloltreated cohort, patients with high-risk CSPH treated with carvedilol (n=81) had lower rates of decompensation events than non-selective beta-blockers untreated patients with high-risk CSPH (n=613 before propensity score matching [PSM], n=162 after PSM). Conclusions Treatment with carvedilol significantly reduces the risk of hepatic decompensation in patients with high-risk CSPH stratified by the new model.

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 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: We present a case of central anticholinergic syndrome following the administration of atropine eye drops.Case summary: A 60-year-old male presented with decreased visual acuity in his left eye and was diagnosed with intraocular lens dislocation. Preoperatively, Isopto atropine® eye drops (1 drop at 15-minutes intervals) were used for pupil dilation. Within an hour of the first instillation, the patient exhibited drowsiness, disorientation, agitation, and urinary retention. Laboratory tests and computed tomography of the brain were unremarkable. Considering the recent administration of atropine eye drops, a diagnosis of central anticholinergic syndrome was made. The surgery was postponed and the patient recovered fully after 3 hours of observation. He remained asymptomatic during an additional day of hospitalization. Conclusions A small dose of atropine eye drops even at a therapeutic dose can induce central anticholinergic syndrome. Therefore, ophthalmologists should be aware of this rare and severe complication.

Purpose: We present a case of central anticholinergic syndrome following the administration of atropine eye drops.Case summary: A 60-year-old male presented with decreased visual acuity in his left eye and was diagnosed with intraocular lens dislocation. Preoperatively, Isopto atropine® eye drops (1 drop at 15-minutes intervals) were used for pupil dilation. Within an hour of the first instillation, the patient exhibited drowsiness, disorientation, agitation, and urinary retention. Laboratory tests and computed tomography of the brain were unremarkable. Considering the recent administration of atropine eye drops, a diagnosis of central anticholinergic syndrome was made. The surgery was postponed and the patient recovered fully after 3 hours of observation. He remained asymptomatic during an additional day of hospitalization. Conclusions A small dose of atropine eye drops even at a therapeutic dose can induce central anticholinergic syndrome. Therefore, ophthalmologists should be aware of this rare and severe complication.

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: We present a case of central anticholinergic syndrome following the administration of atropine eye drops.Case summary: A 60-year-old male presented with decreased visual acuity in his left eye and was diagnosed with intraocular lens dislocation. Preoperatively, Isopto atropine® eye drops (1 drop at 15-minutes intervals) were used for pupil dilation. Within an hour of the first instillation, the patient exhibited drowsiness, disorientation, agitation, and urinary retention. Laboratory tests and computed tomography of the brain were unremarkable. Considering the recent administration of atropine eye drops, a diagnosis of central anticholinergic syndrome was made. The surgery was postponed and the patient recovered fully after 3 hours of observation. He remained asymptomatic during an additional day of hospitalization. Conclusions A small dose of atropine eye drops even at a therapeutic dose can induce central anticholinergic syndrome. Therefore, ophthalmologists should be aware of this rare and severe complication.

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.