Purpose: Improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be a good prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF). In the present study, we investigated the predisposing risk factors affecting the reversibility of LV diastolic filling pattern (DFP) in patients with preserved EF. Materials and Methods: A total of 600 patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF who underwent follow-up echocardiography were enrolled between 2011 and 2020. We compared their index and follow-up echocardiography findings and determined the predisposing risk factor affecting the reversibility of LVDFP. Results: Comparing the index and follow-up echocardiography findings showed that 379 (63%) patients had improved to normal or impaired relaxation LVDFP (improved group) and 221 (37%) patients had maintained or worsened LVDFP (unimproved group).The incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was significantly higher in the unimproved group than in the improved group (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.026). After adjustment for relevant clinical risk factors of diastolic dysfunction, PAF was determined to be an independent predisposing risk factor for the unimproved LVDFP (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.15, p=0.033).Among the parameters of diastolic dysfunction in follow-up echocardiography, the left atrial volume index, mean E/A ratio, and E/e' were significantly improved in patients without PAF but remained in patients with PAF. Conclusion We identified that PAF was an independent predisposing risk factor of the unimproved LVDFP in patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF. Therefore, early detection and management of PAF might be required in patients with LVDD and preserved EF to prevent adverse cardiovascular events.

Purpose: Improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be a good prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF). In the present study, we investigated the predisposing risk factors affecting the reversibility of LV diastolic filling pattern (DFP) in patients with preserved EF. Materials and Methods: A total of 600 patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF who underwent follow-up echocardiography were enrolled between 2011 and 2020. We compared their index and follow-up echocardiography findings and determined the predisposing risk factor affecting the reversibility of LVDFP. Results: Comparing the index and follow-up echocardiography findings showed that 379 (63%) patients had improved to normal or impaired relaxation LVDFP (improved group) and 221 (37%) patients had maintained or worsened LVDFP (unimproved group).The incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was significantly higher in the unimproved group than in the improved group (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.026). After adjustment for relevant clinical risk factors of diastolic dysfunction, PAF was determined to be an independent predisposing risk factor for the unimproved LVDFP (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.15, p=0.033).Among the parameters of diastolic dysfunction in follow-up echocardiography, the left atrial volume index, mean E/A ratio, and E/e' were significantly improved in patients without PAF but remained in patients with PAF. Conclusion We identified that PAF was an independent predisposing risk factor of the unimproved LVDFP in patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF. Therefore, early detection and management of PAF might be required in patients with LVDD and preserved EF to prevent adverse cardiovascular events.

Purpose: Improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be a good prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF). In the present study, we investigated the predisposing risk factors affecting the reversibility of LV diastolic filling pattern (DFP) in patients with preserved EF. Materials and Methods: A total of 600 patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF who underwent follow-up echocardiography were enrolled between 2011 and 2020. We compared their index and follow-up echocardiography findings and determined the predisposing risk factor affecting the reversibility of LVDFP. Results: Comparing the index and follow-up echocardiography findings showed that 379 (63%) patients had improved to normal or impaired relaxation LVDFP (improved group) and 221 (37%) patients had maintained or worsened LVDFP (unimproved group).The incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was significantly higher in the unimproved group than in the improved group (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.026). After adjustment for relevant clinical risk factors of diastolic dysfunction, PAF was determined to be an independent predisposing risk factor for the unimproved LVDFP (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.15, p=0.033).Among the parameters of diastolic dysfunction in follow-up echocardiography, the left atrial volume index, mean E/A ratio, and E/e' were significantly improved in patients without PAF but remained in patients with PAF. Conclusion We identified that PAF was an independent predisposing risk factor of the unimproved LVDFP in patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF. Therefore, early detection and management of PAF might be required in patients with LVDD and preserved EF to prevent adverse cardiovascular events.

Background: Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing coronary interventions. Previous studies suggest that high-dose statins may aid in CIN prevention, yet comparative studies among different statin types using cystatin C (cysC) as a biomarker for CIN are absent. This study evaluated the effectiveness of high-dose rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing cysC-based CIN (cysC-CIN) in AMI patients. Methods: This multicenter registry included 431 patients (rosuvastatin 20 mg: n = 231, atorvastatin 40 mg: n = 200). The primary endpoint was cysC-CIN incidence within 48 hours post contrast; the secondary endpoints were creatinine-based CIN (cr-CIN) incidence within 72 hours post contrast and post 30 days adverse events. Results: The incidences of cysC-CIN (12.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.103) and cr-CIN (6.2% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.103) were higher in the atorvastatin group without significant statistical differences.Multivariable regression analysis, which was adjusted for CIN risk factors and the variables with univariate association, showed no increased odds ratio (OR) (OR, 2.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.899, 5.315; P = 0.085) for cysC-CIN in the atorvastatin group compared to the rosuvastatin group. However, statin-naïve atorvastatin subgroup had significantly increased odds of cysC-CIN compared to the rosuvastatin group (OR, 2.977; 95% CI, 1.057, 8.378; P = 0.039). At post 30 days renal, cardiovascular, and mortality event rates were both low and similar between the two groups. Conclusion No significant difference in cysC-CIN incidence was found between the highdose rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups in AMI patients and cysC was more sensitive to the early detection of CIN than creatinine.

Background: Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing coronary interventions. Previous studies suggest that high-dose statins may aid in CIN prevention, yet comparative studies among different statin types using cystatin C (cysC) as a biomarker for CIN are absent. This study evaluated the effectiveness of high-dose rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing cysC-based CIN (cysC-CIN) in AMI patients. Methods: This multicenter registry included 431 patients (rosuvastatin 20 mg: n = 231, atorvastatin 40 mg: n = 200). The primary endpoint was cysC-CIN incidence within 48 hours post contrast; the secondary endpoints were creatinine-based CIN (cr-CIN) incidence within 72 hours post contrast and post 30 days adverse events. Results: The incidences of cysC-CIN (12.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.103) and cr-CIN (6.2% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.103) were higher in the atorvastatin group without significant statistical differences.Multivariable regression analysis, which was adjusted for CIN risk factors and the variables with univariate association, showed no increased odds ratio (OR) (OR, 2.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.899, 5.315; P = 0.085) for cysC-CIN in the atorvastatin group compared to the rosuvastatin group. However, statin-naïve atorvastatin subgroup had significantly increased odds of cysC-CIN compared to the rosuvastatin group (OR, 2.977; 95% CI, 1.057, 8.378; P = 0.039). At post 30 days renal, cardiovascular, and mortality event rates were both low and similar between the two groups. Conclusion No significant difference in cysC-CIN incidence was found between the highdose rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups in AMI patients and cysC was more sensitive to the early detection of CIN than creatinine.

Background: Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing coronary interventions. Previous studies suggest that high-dose statins may aid in CIN prevention, yet comparative studies among different statin types using cystatin C (cysC) as a biomarker for CIN are absent. This study evaluated the effectiveness of high-dose rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing cysC-based CIN (cysC-CIN) in AMI patients. Methods: This multicenter registry included 431 patients (rosuvastatin 20 mg: n = 231, atorvastatin 40 mg: n = 200). The primary endpoint was cysC-CIN incidence within 48 hours post contrast; the secondary endpoints were creatinine-based CIN (cr-CIN) incidence within 72 hours post contrast and post 30 days adverse events. Results: The incidences of cysC-CIN (12.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.103) and cr-CIN (6.2% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.103) were higher in the atorvastatin group without significant statistical differences.Multivariable regression analysis, which was adjusted for CIN risk factors and the variables with univariate association, showed no increased odds ratio (OR) (OR, 2.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.899, 5.315; P = 0.085) for cysC-CIN in the atorvastatin group compared to the rosuvastatin group. However, statin-naïve atorvastatin subgroup had significantly increased odds of cysC-CIN compared to the rosuvastatin group (OR, 2.977; 95% CI, 1.057, 8.378; P = 0.039). At post 30 days renal, cardiovascular, and mortality event rates were both low and similar between the two groups. Conclusion No significant difference in cysC-CIN incidence was found between the highdose rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups in AMI patients and cysC was more sensitive to the early detection of CIN than creatinine.

Purpose: Improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be a good prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF). In the present study, we investigated the predisposing risk factors affecting the reversibility of LV diastolic filling pattern (DFP) in patients with preserved EF. Materials and Methods: A total of 600 patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF who underwent follow-up echocardiography were enrolled between 2011 and 2020. We compared their index and follow-up echocardiography findings and determined the predisposing risk factor affecting the reversibility of LVDFP. Results: Comparing the index and follow-up echocardiography findings showed that 379 (63%) patients had improved to normal or impaired relaxation LVDFP (improved group) and 221 (37%) patients had maintained or worsened LVDFP (unimproved group).The incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was significantly higher in the unimproved group than in the improved group (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.026). After adjustment for relevant clinical risk factors of diastolic dysfunction, PAF was determined to be an independent predisposing risk factor for the unimproved LVDFP (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.15, p=0.033).Among the parameters of diastolic dysfunction in follow-up echocardiography, the left atrial volume index, mean E/A ratio, and E/e' were significantly improved in patients without PAF but remained in patients with PAF. Conclusion We identified that PAF was an independent predisposing risk factor of the unimproved LVDFP in patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF. Therefore, early detection and management of PAF might be required in patients with LVDD and preserved EF to prevent adverse cardiovascular events.

Background: Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing coronary interventions. Previous studies suggest that high-dose statins may aid in CIN prevention, yet comparative studies among different statin types using cystatin C (cysC) as a biomarker for CIN are absent. This study evaluated the effectiveness of high-dose rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing cysC-based CIN (cysC-CIN) in AMI patients. Methods: This multicenter registry included 431 patients (rosuvastatin 20 mg: n = 231, atorvastatin 40 mg: n = 200). The primary endpoint was cysC-CIN incidence within 48 hours post contrast; the secondary endpoints were creatinine-based CIN (cr-CIN) incidence within 72 hours post contrast and post 30 days adverse events. Results: The incidences of cysC-CIN (12.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.103) and cr-CIN (6.2% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.103) were higher in the atorvastatin group without significant statistical differences.Multivariable regression analysis, which was adjusted for CIN risk factors and the variables with univariate association, showed no increased odds ratio (OR) (OR, 2.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.899, 5.315; P = 0.085) for cysC-CIN in the atorvastatin group compared to the rosuvastatin group. However, statin-naïve atorvastatin subgroup had significantly increased odds of cysC-CIN compared to the rosuvastatin group (OR, 2.977; 95% CI, 1.057, 8.378; P = 0.039). At post 30 days renal, cardiovascular, and mortality event rates were both low and similar between the two groups. Conclusion No significant difference in cysC-CIN incidence was found between the highdose rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups in AMI patients and cysC was more sensitive to the early detection of CIN than creatinine.

Purpose: Improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be a good prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF). In the present study, we investigated the predisposing risk factors affecting the reversibility of LV diastolic filling pattern (DFP) in patients with preserved EF. Materials and Methods: A total of 600 patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF who underwent follow-up echocardiography were enrolled between 2011 and 2020. We compared their index and follow-up echocardiography findings and determined the predisposing risk factor affecting the reversibility of LVDFP. Results: Comparing the index and follow-up echocardiography findings showed that 379 (63%) patients had improved to normal or impaired relaxation LVDFP (improved group) and 221 (37%) patients had maintained or worsened LVDFP (unimproved group).The incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) was significantly higher in the unimproved group than in the improved group (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.026). After adjustment for relevant clinical risk factors of diastolic dysfunction, PAF was determined to be an independent predisposing risk factor for the unimproved LVDFP (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.15, p=0.033).Among the parameters of diastolic dysfunction in follow-up echocardiography, the left atrial volume index, mean E/A ratio, and E/e' were significantly improved in patients without PAF but remained in patients with PAF. Conclusion We identified that PAF was an independent predisposing risk factor of the unimproved LVDFP in patients with pseudonormal LVDFP and preserved EF. Therefore, early detection and management of PAF might be required in patients with LVDD and preserved EF to prevent adverse cardiovascular events.

Purpose: The number of patients presenting with vaccination-related cardiovascular symptoms after receiving mRNA vaccines (mRNA-VRCS) is increasing. We investigated the incidence of vaccine-related adverse events (VAEs), including myocarditis and pericarditis, in patients with mRNA-VRCS after receiving BNT162b2-Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273-Moderna vaccines. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS who visited the outpatient clinic of two tertiary medical centers. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, echocardiographic findings, and electrocardiographic findings were evaluated. VAE was defined as myocarditis or pericarditis in patients after mRNA vaccination. Clinical outcomes during short-term follow-up, including emergency room (ER) visit, hospitalization, or death, were also assessed among the patients. Results: A total of 952 patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS were included in this study, with 89.7% receiving Pfizer-BioNTech and 10.3% receiving Moderna vaccines. The mean duration from vaccination to symptom was 5.6±7.5 days. VAEs, including acute myocarditis and acute pericarditis, were confirmed in 11 (1.2%) and 10 (1.1%) patients, respectively. The VAE group showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiography changes, and ST-T segment changes. During the short-term follow-up period of 3 months, the VAE group showed a higher hospitalization rate compared to the control group; there was no significant difference in ER visit (p=0.320) or mortality rates (p>0.999). Conclusion Amongst the patients who experienced mRNA-VRCS, the total incidence of VAEs, including acute myocarditis and pericarditis, was 2.2%. Patients with VAEs showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiographic changes, and ST-T segment changes compared to those without VAEs. With or without the cardiovascular events, the prognosis in patients with mRNA-VRCS was favorable.