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 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.

Background: We aimed to investigate the characteristics of pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC) at diagnosis in Korea. Methods: This was a multicenter, registry-based, inception cohort study conducted in Korea between 2021 and 2023. Children and adolescents newly diagnosed with UC < 18 years were included. Baseline clinicodemographics, results from laboratory, endoscopic exams, and Paris classification factors were collected, and associations between factors at diagnosis were investigated. Results: A total 205 patients with UC were included. Male-to-female ratio was 1.59:1, and the median age at diagnosis was 14.7 years (interquartile range 11.9–16.2). Disease extent of E1 comprised 12.2% (25/205), E2 24.9% (51/205), E3 11.2% (23/205), and E4 51.7% (106/205) of the patients. S1 comprised 13.7% (28/205) of the patients. The proportion of patients with a disease severity of S1 was significantly higher in patients with E4 compared to the other groups (E1: 0% vs. E2: 2% vs. E3: 0% vs. E4: 24.5%, P < 0.001). Significant differences between disease extent groups were also observed in Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (median 25 vs. 35 vs. 40 vs. 45, respectively, P < 0.001), hemoglobin (median 13.5 vs.13.2 vs. 11.6 vs. 11.4 g/dL, respectively, P < 0.001), platelet count (median 301 vs. 324 vs. 372 vs. 377 × 103 /μL, respectively, P = 0.001), C-reactive protein (median 0.05 vs. 0.10 vs. 0.17 vs. 0.38 mg/dL, respectively, P < 0.001), and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (median 4 vs. 4 vs. 4 vs. 5, respectively, P = 0.006). No significant differences were observed in factors between groups divided according to sex and diagnosis age. Conclusion This study represents the largest multicenter pediatric inflammatory bowel disease cohort in Korea. Disease severity was associated with disease extent in pediatric patients with UC at diagnosis.

Background: We aimed to investigate the characteristics of pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC) at diagnosis in Korea. Methods: This was a multicenter, registry-based, inception cohort study conducted in Korea between 2021 and 2023. Children and adolescents newly diagnosed with UC < 18 years were included. Baseline clinicodemographics, results from laboratory, endoscopic exams, and Paris classification factors were collected, and associations between factors at diagnosis were investigated. Results: A total 205 patients with UC were included. Male-to-female ratio was 1.59:1, and the median age at diagnosis was 14.7 years (interquartile range 11.9–16.2). Disease extent of E1 comprised 12.2% (25/205), E2 24.9% (51/205), E3 11.2% (23/205), and E4 51.7% (106/205) of the patients. S1 comprised 13.7% (28/205) of the patients. The proportion of patients with a disease severity of S1 was significantly higher in patients with E4 compared to the other groups (E1: 0% vs. E2: 2% vs. E3: 0% vs. E4: 24.5%, P < 0.001). Significant differences between disease extent groups were also observed in Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (median 25 vs. 35 vs. 40 vs. 45, respectively, P < 0.001), hemoglobin (median 13.5 vs.13.2 vs. 11.6 vs. 11.4 g/dL, respectively, P < 0.001), platelet count (median 301 vs. 324 vs. 372 vs. 377 × 103 /μL, respectively, P = 0.001), C-reactive protein (median 0.05 vs. 0.10 vs. 0.17 vs. 0.38 mg/dL, respectively, P < 0.001), and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (median 4 vs. 4 vs. 4 vs. 5, respectively, P = 0.006). No significant differences were observed in factors between groups divided according to sex and diagnosis age. Conclusion This study represents the largest multicenter pediatric inflammatory bowel disease cohort in Korea. Disease severity was associated with disease extent in pediatric patients with UC at diagnosis.

Background: We aimed to investigate the characteristics of pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC) at diagnosis in Korea. Methods: This was a multicenter, registry-based, inception cohort study conducted in Korea between 2021 and 2023. Children and adolescents newly diagnosed with UC < 18 years were included. Baseline clinicodemographics, results from laboratory, endoscopic exams, and Paris classification factors were collected, and associations between factors at diagnosis were investigated. Results: A total 205 patients with UC were included. Male-to-female ratio was 1.59:1, and the median age at diagnosis was 14.7 years (interquartile range 11.9–16.2). Disease extent of E1 comprised 12.2% (25/205), E2 24.9% (51/205), E3 11.2% (23/205), and E4 51.7% (106/205) of the patients. S1 comprised 13.7% (28/205) of the patients. The proportion of patients with a disease severity of S1 was significantly higher in patients with E4 compared to the other groups (E1: 0% vs. E2: 2% vs. E3: 0% vs. E4: 24.5%, P < 0.001). Significant differences between disease extent groups were also observed in Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (median 25 vs. 35 vs. 40 vs. 45, respectively, P < 0.001), hemoglobin (median 13.5 vs.13.2 vs. 11.6 vs. 11.4 g/dL, respectively, P < 0.001), platelet count (median 301 vs. 324 vs. 372 vs. 377 × 103 /μL, respectively, P = 0.001), C-reactive protein (median 0.05 vs. 0.10 vs. 0.17 vs. 0.38 mg/dL, respectively, P < 0.001), and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (median 4 vs. 4 vs. 4 vs. 5, respectively, P = 0.006). No significant differences were observed in factors between groups divided according to sex and diagnosis age. Conclusion This study represents the largest multicenter pediatric inflammatory bowel disease cohort in Korea. Disease severity was associated with disease extent in pediatric patients with UC at diagnosis.

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.