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 and Objectives: The popliteal artery is generally regarded as a “no-stent zone.”Limited data are available on the outcomes of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for popliteal artery disease. This study aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes among patients who received DCB treatment for atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. Methods: This prospective, multicenter registry study enrolled 100 patients from 7 Korean endovascular centers who underwent endovascular therapy using IN.PACT DCB (Medtronic) for symptomatic atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. The primary endpoint was 12-month clinical primary patency and the secondary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR)–free rate. Results: The mean age of the study cohort was 65.7±10.8 years, and 77% of enrolled patients were men. The mean lesion length was 93.7±53.7 mm, and total occlusions were present in 45% of patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined atherectomy was performed in 17% and provisional stenting was required in 11%. Out of the enrolled patients, 91 patients completed the 12-month follow-up. Clinical primary patency and TLR-free survival rates at 12 months were 76.0% and 87.2%, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified female and longer lesion length as the significant independent predictors of loss of patency. Conclusions DCB treatment yielded favorable 12-month clinical primary patency and TLRfree survival outcomes in patients with popliteal artery disease.

Background and Objectives: The popliteal artery is generally regarded as a “no-stent zone.”Limited data are available on the outcomes of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for popliteal artery disease. This study aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes among patients who received DCB treatment for atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. Methods: This prospective, multicenter registry study enrolled 100 patients from 7 Korean endovascular centers who underwent endovascular therapy using IN.PACT DCB (Medtronic) for symptomatic atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. The primary endpoint was 12-month clinical primary patency and the secondary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR)–free rate. Results: The mean age of the study cohort was 65.7±10.8 years, and 77% of enrolled patients were men. The mean lesion length was 93.7±53.7 mm, and total occlusions were present in 45% of patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined atherectomy was performed in 17% and provisional stenting was required in 11%. Out of the enrolled patients, 91 patients completed the 12-month follow-up. Clinical primary patency and TLR-free survival rates at 12 months were 76.0% and 87.2%, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified female and longer lesion length as the significant independent predictors of loss of patency. Conclusions DCB treatment yielded favorable 12-month clinical primary patency and TLRfree survival outcomes in patients with popliteal artery disease.

Background and Objectives: The popliteal artery is generally regarded as a “no-stent zone.”Limited data are available on the outcomes of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for popliteal artery disease. This study aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes among patients who received DCB treatment for atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. Methods: This prospective, multicenter registry study enrolled 100 patients from 7 Korean endovascular centers who underwent endovascular therapy using IN.PACT DCB (Medtronic) for symptomatic atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. The primary endpoint was 12-month clinical primary patency and the secondary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR)–free rate. Results: The mean age of the study cohort was 65.7±10.8 years, and 77% of enrolled patients were men. The mean lesion length was 93.7±53.7 mm, and total occlusions were present in 45% of patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined atherectomy was performed in 17% and provisional stenting was required in 11%. Out of the enrolled patients, 91 patients completed the 12-month follow-up. Clinical primary patency and TLR-free survival rates at 12 months were 76.0% and 87.2%, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified female and longer lesion length as the significant independent predictors of loss of patency. Conclusions DCB treatment yielded favorable 12-month clinical primary patency and TLRfree survival outcomes in patients with popliteal artery disease.

Background and Objectives: The popliteal artery is generally regarded as a “no-stent zone.”Limited data are available on the outcomes of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for popliteal artery disease. This study aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes among patients who received DCB treatment for atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. Methods: This prospective, multicenter registry study enrolled 100 patients from 7 Korean endovascular centers who underwent endovascular therapy using IN.PACT DCB (Medtronic) for symptomatic atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. The primary endpoint was 12-month clinical primary patency and the secondary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR)–free rate. Results: The mean age of the study cohort was 65.7±10.8 years, and 77% of enrolled patients were men. The mean lesion length was 93.7±53.7 mm, and total occlusions were present in 45% of patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined atherectomy was performed in 17% and provisional stenting was required in 11%. Out of the enrolled patients, 91 patients completed the 12-month follow-up. Clinical primary patency and TLR-free survival rates at 12 months were 76.0% and 87.2%, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified female and longer lesion length as the significant independent predictors of loss of patency. Conclusions DCB treatment yielded favorable 12-month clinical primary patency and TLRfree survival outcomes in patients with popliteal artery disease.

Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.

Background: Korea recently established 70 emergency medical service areas. However, there are many concerns that medical resources for stroke could not be evenly distributed through the country. We aimed to compare the treatment quality and outcomes of acute stroke among the emergency medical service areas. Methods: This study analyzed the data of 28,800 patients admitted in 248 hospitals which participated in the 8th acute stroke quality assessment by Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Individual hospitals were regrouped into emergency service areas according to the address of the location. Assessment indicators and fatality were compared by the service areas. We defined the appropriate hospital by the performance of intravenous thrombolysis. Results: In seven service areas, there were no hospitals which received more than 10 stroke patients for 6 months. In nine service areas, there were no patients who underwent intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). Among 167 designated emergency medical centers, 50 hospitals (29.9%) responded that IVT was impossible 24 hours a day. There are 97 (39.1%) hospitals that meet the definitions of appropriate hospital. In 23 service areas (32.9%) had no appropriate or feasible hospitals. The fatality of service areas with stroke centers were 6.9% within 30 days and 15.6% within 1 year from stroke onset than those without stroke centers (7.7%, 16.9%, respectively). Conclusions There was a wide regional gap in the medical resource and the quality of treatments for acute stroke among emergency medical service areas in Korea. The poststroke fatality rate of the service areas which have stroke centers or appropriate hospitals were significantly low.