Prognostic impact of beta-blocker use by N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide level in acute heart failure patients.

AIMS: Both patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) present with elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and have multiple comorbidities; consequently, the prognostic effect of NT-proBNP according to beta-blocker (BB) use is unknown. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated patients admitted for acute HF between January 2012 and December 2017 at Ulsan University Hospital. Clinical, echocardiographic, laboratory and drug prescription data, including BB data, were collected from the hospital database. Information on mortality was collected by reviewing medical records or using national death data. RESULTS: Of the 472 patients evaluated, 216 (45.8%) and 256 (54.2%) patients were and were not prescribed BB at discharge, respectively. A total of 224 (47.5%) patients died within a median follow-up duration of 44 months. The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed reduced all-cause mortality with BB in HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤ 40%) but not in HFpEF (ejection fraction > 40%). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, transmitral to tissue Doppler imaging, early diastolic velocity ratio (E/E'), NT-proBNP and BB use were independent predictors of all-cause mortality in HFrEF. Meanwhile, haemoglobin and NT-proBNP levels were independent predictors of HFpEF. The NT-proBNP cut-off value for determining all-cause mortality was set to 4800 pg/mL. Among HFrEF patients with NT-proBNP < 4800 pg/mL, the survival rate was higher for patients with BB use than those with no BB use (log-rank P < 0.001). However, in the HFpEF group, the survival rate associated with BB use did not differ according to the NT-proBNP levels. Both HFrEF and HFpEF patients with NT-proBNP levels of ≥4800 pg/mL presented with multiple comorbidities, including lower body mass index and haemoglobin levels and higher creatinine levels, NT-proBNP levels and E/E'. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute HF, BB use is associated with reduced all-cause mortality in those with HFrEF but not in those with HFpEF. HFrEF patients with NT-proBNP levels of <4800 pg/mL treated with BB have a higher survival rate than those not treated with BB. However, this benefit is not seen in HFrEF patients with NT-proBNP levels of ≥4800 pg/mL or in all HFpEF patients, regardless of the NT-proBNP level. NT-proBNP levels are elevated in multiple comorbid conditions, and these comorbidities may contribute to the attenuated effects of BB on all-cause mortality.

Analysis of trend in the role of national and regional hubs in prostatectomy after prostate cancer diagnosis in the past 5 years: A nationwide population-based study.

PURPOSE: The regions where patients diagnosed with prostate cancer by biopsy receive prostatectomy are divided into national hub and regional hubs, and to confirm the change in the role of regional hubs compared to national hub. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from July 2013 to June 2017 encompassing 218,155 patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with prostate cancer were analyzed using the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. The degree of patient outflow was assessed by dividing the regional diagnosis-to-surgery ratio with the national ratio for each year. Based on this ratio, national and regional hubs were determined. RESULTS: Seoul consistently maintained a patient influx with a ratio above 1.6. Busan and Gyeonggi consistently exceeded 0.9, while Ulsan and Daegu steadily increased, exceeding 1.0 between 2015 and 2016. Jeonnam province also consistently maintained the ratio above 0.7. Jeju, Daejeon, Gangwon, and Incheon remained below 0.5, indicative of substantial patient outflows, whereas Gwangju and Gyeongbuk had the highest patient outflows with ratios below 0.15. Therefore, Seoul was designated as a national hub, whereas Busan, Gyeonggi, Ulsan, Daegu, and Jeonnam were classified as regional hubs. Jeju, Daejeon, Gangwon, and Incheon were the dominant outflow areas, while Gwangju and Gyeongbuk were the highest outflow areas. CONCLUSIONS: Seoul, as the national hub for prostate cancer surgery, operated on 1.76 times more patients than any other region during 2013-2017. Busan, Gyeonggi, Ulsan, Daegu, and Jeonnam functioned as regional hubs, but approximately 10%-20% of patients sought treatment at national hubs.

Direct oral anticoagulants for oral anticoagulants-naïve Asian patients with atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease undergoing dialysis.

In Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) remains debatable. From the national health insurance claims data in South Korea, we included 425 new users of OAC among patients with non-valvular AF and ESRD undergoing dialysis between 2013 and 2020. Patients were categorized into DOAC (n = 106) and warfarin group (n = 319). Clinical outcomes, including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, were compared between the two groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. During the median follow-up of 3.2 years, the incidence of ischemic stroke was significantly reduced in the DOAC compared to the warfarin group [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.07; P = 0.001]. However, the incidence of MI (HR 1.32; P = 0.41) and GI bleeding (HR 1.78; P = 0.06) were not significantly different between the two groups. No ICH events occurred in the DOAC group, although the incidence rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.17). In Asian patients with AF and ESRD undergoing dialysis, DOACs may be associated with a reduced risk of ischemic stroke compared with warfarin. The MI, ICH, and GI bleeding rates may be comparable between DOACs and warfarin.

Association between smoking status and subclinical coronary atherosclerosis in asymptomatic individuals.

Objectives: In this study, we sought to evaluate the association between smoking status and subclinical coronary atherosclerosis, as detected by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), in asymptomatic individuals. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 9,285 asymptomatic participants (mean age, 53.7±8.0 years; 6,017 [64.8%] male) with no history of coronary artery disease (CAD) who had undergone self-referred CCTA. Of these participants, 4,333 (46.7%) were considered never smokers, 2,885 (31.1%) former smokers, and 2,067 (22.3%) current smokers. We assessed the degree and characteristics of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis using CCTA, with obstructive CAD defined as a diameter stenosis of at least 50%. Results: Compared with never-smokers, former smokers exhibited no significant differences in the probabilities of obstructive CAD, any coronary plaque, calcified plaque, or mixed plaque, as determined using adjusted odds ratios (aORs; p>0.05 for all). However, the risk of non-calcified plaque was significantly higher in former smokers (aOR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.78; p=0.048). Current smokers had significantly higher rates of obstructive CAD (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.96; p=0.010), any coronary plaque (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.65; p<0.001), calcified plaque (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.55; p=0.001), non-calcified plaque (aOR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.32; p<0.001), and mixed plaque (aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.39 to 2.86; p<0.001) compared to never smokers. Conclusion: This cross-sectional study revealed a significant association between current smoking and subclinical coronary atherosclerosis, as detected on CCTA. Additionally, former smoking demonstrated an association with non-calcified plaque, indicating elevated cardiovascular risk.

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy. METHODS: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography. FINDINGS: In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).