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: 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: 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: 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: Acute deterioration of patients in general wards often leads to major adverse events (MAEs), including unplanned intensive care unit transfers, cardiac arrest, or death. Traditional early warning scores (EWSs) have shown limited predictive accuracy, with frequent false positives. We conducted a prospective observational external validation study of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based EWS, the VitalCare - Major Adverse Event Score (VC-MAES), at a tertiary medical center in the Republic of Korea. Methods: Adult patients from general wards, including internal medicine (IM) and obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN)—the latter were rarely investigated in prior AI-based EWS studies—were included. The VC-MAES predictions were compared with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) predictions using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and logistic regression for baseline EWS values. False-positives per true positive (FPpTP) were assessed based on the power threshold. Results: Of 6,039 encounters, 217 (3.6%) had MAEs (IM: 9.5%, OBGYN: 0.26%). Six hours prior to MAEs, the VC-MAES achieved an AUROC of 0.918 and an AUPRC of 0.352, including the OBGYN subgroup (AUROC, 0.964; AUPRC, 0.388), outperforming the NEWS (0.797 and 0.124) and MEWS (0.722 and 0.079). The FPpTP was reduced by up to 71%. Baseline VC-MAES was strongly associated with MAEs (P<0.001). Conclusions The VC-MAES significantly outperformed traditional EWSs in predicting adverse events in general ward patients. The robust performance and lower FPpTP suggest that broader adoption of the VC-MAES may improve clinical efficiency and resource allocation in general wards.

Background: This study was designed to determine the current status of diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease (VHD) in Korea. Methods: A nationwide registry study was conducted in 45 hospitals in Korea involving adult patients with at least moderate VHD as determined by echocardiography carried out between September and October of 2019. Of a total of 4,094 patients with at least moderate VHD, 1,482 had severe VHD (age, 71.3 ± 13.5 years; 49.1% male). Echocar‑ diographic data used for the diagnosis of each case of VHD were analyzed. Experts from each center determined the diagnosis and treatment strategy for VHD based on current guidelines and institutional policy. The clinical out‑ come was in-hospital mortality. Results: Each valve underwent surgical or transcatheter intervention in 19.3% cases of severe mitral stenosis, 31.4% cases of severe primary mitral regurgitation (MR), 7.5% cases of severe secondary MR, 43.7% cases of severe aortic stenosis, 27.5% cases of severe aortic regurgitation, and 7.2% cases of severe tricuspid regurgitation. The overall inhospital mortality rate for patients with severe VHD was 5.4%, and for secondary severe MR and severe tricuspid regur‑ gitation, the rates were 9.0% and 7.5%, respectively, indicating a poor prognosis. In-hospital mortality occurred in 73 of the 1,244 patients (5.9%) who received conservative treatment and in 18 of the 455 patients (4.0%) who received a surgical or transcatheter intervention, which was significantly lower in the intervention group (P = 0.037). Conclusions This study provides important information about the current status of VHD diagnosis and treatment through a nationwide registry in Korea and helps to define future changes.