1.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
2.Expert consensus on oral corticosteroid use and tapering in severe asthma management
Joo-Hee KIM ; Noeul KANG ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Da Woon SIM ; So-Young PARK ; Jong-Sook PARK ; Hyun LEE ; Hyun Jung JIN ; Woo-Jung SONG ; So Ri KIM ; Sang-Heon KIM
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):12-21
Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.
3.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
4.Expert consensus on oral corticosteroid use and tapering in severe asthma management
Joo-Hee KIM ; Noeul KANG ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Da Woon SIM ; So-Young PARK ; Jong-Sook PARK ; Hyun LEE ; Hyun Jung JIN ; Woo-Jung SONG ; So Ri KIM ; Sang-Heon KIM
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):12-21
Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.
5.Expert consensus on oral corticosteroid use and tapering in severe asthma management
Joo-Hee KIM ; Noeul KANG ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Da Woon SIM ; So-Young PARK ; Jong-Sook PARK ; Hyun LEE ; Hyun Jung JIN ; Woo-Jung SONG ; So Ri KIM ; Sang-Heon KIM
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):12-21
Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.
6.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
7.Expert consensus on oral corticosteroid use and tapering in severe asthma management
Joo-Hee KIM ; Noeul KANG ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Da Woon SIM ; So-Young PARK ; Jong-Sook PARK ; Hyun LEE ; Hyun Jung JIN ; Woo-Jung SONG ; So Ri KIM ; Sang-Heon KIM
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):12-21
Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.
8.Expert consensus on oral corticosteroid use and tapering in severe asthma management
Joo-Hee KIM ; Noeul KANG ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Da Woon SIM ; So-Young PARK ; Jong-Sook PARK ; Hyun LEE ; Hyun Jung JIN ; Woo-Jung SONG ; So Ri KIM ; Sang-Heon KIM
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):12-21
Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.
9.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
10.Clinical Outcomes After Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment in Popliteal Artery Disease: K-POP Registry 12-Month Results
Jong-Il PARK ; Young-Guk KO ; Seung-Jun LEE ; Chul-Min AHN ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Cheol-Woong YU ; Jong Kwan PARK ; Sang-Ho PARK ; Jae-Hwan LEE ; Su-Hong KIM ; Yong-Joon LEE ; Sung-Jin HONG ; Jung-Sun KIM ; Byeong-Keuk KIM ; Myeong-Ki HONG ; Donghoon CHOI
Korean Circulation Journal 2024;54(8):454-465
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.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail