Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Objectives: Physicians experience high occupational stress due to heavy workload, responsibility and stressful situations in the medical field. Although occupational stress decreases productivity and increases medical accidents, occupational stress on Korean psychiatrists is not well studied. In this study, we investigated the occupational stress and career satisfaction of Korean psychiatrists. Methods: Electronic surveys were conducted via e-mail, and a total of 266 psychiatrists fully answered the surveys. The surveys consisted of the Korean Occupational Stress Scale (KOSS), career satisfaction and stress inventory for the health professional. Results: The mean KOSS score of Korean psychiatrists was lower than the score of other Korean professions (43.99 vs. 46.03). There are significant differences in the sub-items of KOSS, depending on the lifestyle, the career and the hospital on duty. Psychiatric residents scored significantly higher in job control and occupational climate than psychiatrists. On the other hand, workplace relationships and job insecurity scored significantly higher in psychiatrists. Psychiatrists working in general and university hospitals had higher stress in job demand than psychiatrists working at private psychiatric hospitals. Job control and lack of reward scores were high in psychiatrists working in national psychiatric hospitals, and 21.8% of psychiatrists answered that they would not become a psychiatrist again. Conclusion This study showed the overall job stress level of psychiatrists in Korea, and they were experiencing high job stress in different areas depending on factors, such as position, working environment and living habits.

Background/Aims: Recurrent acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is an adverse cardiac event in patients with a first AMI. The predictors of recurrent AMI after the first AMI in patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been elucidated. Methods: We analyzed the data collected from 9,869 patients (63.2 ± 12.4 years, men:women = 7,446:2,423) who were enrolled in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health between November 2011 and October 2015, had suffered their first AMI and had received successful PCI during the index hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the independent predictors of recurrent AMI following the first AMI. Results: The cumulative incidence of recurrent AMI after successful PCI was 3.6% (359/9,869). According to the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the significant predictive factors for recurrent AMI were diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, atypical chest pain, and multivessel disease. Conclusions In this Korean prospective cohort study, the independent predictors of recurrent AMI after successful PCI for the first AMI were diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, atypical chest pain, and multivessel disease.

The optimal dose of beta blockers after acute myocardial infarction (MI) remains uncertain. We evaluated the effectiveness of low-dose nebivolol, a beta1 blocker and a vasodilator, in patients with acute MI. A total of 625 patients with acute MI from 14 teaching hospitals in Korea were divided into 2 groups according to the dose of nebivolol (nebistol®, Elyson Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea): low-dose group (1.25 mg daily, n=219) and usual- to high-dose group (≥2.5 mg daily, n=406). The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, composite of death from any cause, non-fatal MI, stroke, repeat revascularization, rehospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure) at 12 months. After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, the rates of MACCE were not different between the low-dose and the usual- to high-dose groups (2.8% and 3.1%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 2.24, p=0.860). The low-dose nebivolol group showed higher rates of MI than the usual- to high-dose group (1.2% and 0%, p=0.008). The 2 groups had similar rates of death from any cause (1.1% and 0.3%, p=0.273), stroke (0.4% and 1.1%, p=0.384), repeat PCI (1.2% and 0.8%, p=0.428), rehospitalization for unstable angina (1.2% and 1.0%, p=0.743) and for heart failure (0.6% and 0.7%, p=0.832). In patients with acute MI, the rates of MACCE for low-dose and usual- to high-dose nebivolol were not significantly different at 12-month follow-up.

This erratum is being published to correct the error on page 650 of the article. The number of participating research institution should be corrected.

No abstract available.

Cardiovascular Diseases ; Cohort Studies ; Daegu ; Diagnosis ; Humans ; Incidence ; Korea ; Mortality ; Myocardial Infarction ; Myocardial Ischemia