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: Evidence remains limited on the real-world prescription of very low-dose oral anticoagulation among frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We described the practice patterns, effectiveness, and safety of very low-dose edoxaban (15 mg once daily). Methods: Patients with AF prescribed edoxaban 15 mg once daily in 2 tertiary hospitals between 2016 and September 2022 were included. Baseline clinical characteristics and clinical outcomes of interest were thromboembolic and bleeding events. Results: A total of 674 patients were included (mean age 78.3±9.1, 49.7% aged ≥80 years, 49.3% women, median follow-up 1.0±1.2 years). Mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 3.9±1.6, and the modified HAS-BLED score was 2.0±1.1. Between 2016 and 2022, the number of very lowdose edoxaban prescriptions increased. The main reasons for the prescription of very lowdose were low body weight (55.5% below 60 kg), anaemia (62.8%), chronic kidney disease (40.2%), active cancer (15.3%), concomitant anti-platelet use (26.7%), and prior major bleeding (19.7%). During a median follow-up duration of 8 (interquartile range 3–16) months, overall thromboembolic and bleeding events occurred in 16 (2.3%) and 88 (13.1%) patients, respectively. Compared to the expected event rates on the established risk scoring systems, patients receiving very low-dose edoxaban demonstrated a 61% reduction in ischemic stroke, a 68% reduction of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, whereas a 49% increase in major bleeding. Conclusions The prescription of very low-dose edoxaban was increased over time, attributable to various clinical factors. The use of very low-dose edoxaban reduced the expected risk of thromboembolic events.

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: Evidence remains limited on the real-world prescription of very low-dose oral anticoagulation among frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We described the practice patterns, effectiveness, and safety of very low-dose edoxaban (15 mg once daily). Methods: Patients with AF prescribed edoxaban 15 mg once daily in 2 tertiary hospitals between 2016 and September 2022 were included. Baseline clinical characteristics and clinical outcomes of interest were thromboembolic and bleeding events. Results: A total of 674 patients were included (mean age 78.3±9.1, 49.7% aged ≥80 years, 49.3% women, median follow-up 1.0±1.2 years). Mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 3.9±1.6, and the modified HAS-BLED score was 2.0±1.1. Between 2016 and 2022, the number of very lowdose edoxaban prescriptions increased. The main reasons for the prescription of very lowdose were low body weight (55.5% below 60 kg), anaemia (62.8%), chronic kidney disease (40.2%), active cancer (15.3%), concomitant anti-platelet use (26.7%), and prior major bleeding (19.7%). During a median follow-up duration of 8 (interquartile range 3–16) months, overall thromboembolic and bleeding events occurred in 16 (2.3%) and 88 (13.1%) patients, respectively. Compared to the expected event rates on the established risk scoring systems, patients receiving very low-dose edoxaban demonstrated a 61% reduction in ischemic stroke, a 68% reduction of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, whereas a 49% increase in major bleeding. Conclusions The prescription of very low-dose edoxaban was increased over time, attributable to various clinical factors. The use of very low-dose edoxaban reduced the expected risk of thromboembolic events.

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.

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.

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: 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: Evidence remains limited on the real-world prescription of very low-dose oral anticoagulation among frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We described the practice patterns, effectiveness, and safety of very low-dose edoxaban (15 mg once daily). Methods: Patients with AF prescribed edoxaban 15 mg once daily in 2 tertiary hospitals between 2016 and September 2022 were included. Baseline clinical characteristics and clinical outcomes of interest were thromboembolic and bleeding events. Results: A total of 674 patients were included (mean age 78.3±9.1, 49.7% aged ≥80 years, 49.3% women, median follow-up 1.0±1.2 years). Mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 3.9±1.6, and the modified HAS-BLED score was 2.0±1.1. Between 2016 and 2022, the number of very lowdose edoxaban prescriptions increased. The main reasons for the prescription of very lowdose were low body weight (55.5% below 60 kg), anaemia (62.8%), chronic kidney disease (40.2%), active cancer (15.3%), concomitant anti-platelet use (26.7%), and prior major bleeding (19.7%). During a median follow-up duration of 8 (interquartile range 3–16) months, overall thromboembolic and bleeding events occurred in 16 (2.3%) and 88 (13.1%) patients, respectively. Compared to the expected event rates on the established risk scoring systems, patients receiving very low-dose edoxaban demonstrated a 61% reduction in ischemic stroke, a 68% reduction of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, whereas a 49% increase in major bleeding. Conclusions The prescription of very low-dose edoxaban was increased over time, attributable to various clinical factors. The use of very low-dose edoxaban reduced the expected risk of thromboembolic events.

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.