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: Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI)-2012 reference equation is currently suggested for interpretation of spirometry results and a new local reference equation has been developed in South Korea. However, lung function profiles according to the different reference equations and their clinical relevance have not been identified in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Methods: Our cross-sectional study evaluated Choi’s, Korean National Health and National Examination Survey (KNHANES)-VI, and GLI-2012 reference equations. We estimated the percentages of predictive forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1) and airflow limitation severity according to reference equations and analyzed their associations with patient reported outcomes (PROs): COPD assessment test (CAT) score, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD patients (SGRQ-C) score, and six minute walk distance (6MWD). Results: In the eligible 2,180 COPD patients, lower predicted values of FEV 1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) were found in GLI-2012 compared to Choi's and KNHANES-VI equations.GLI-2012 equation resulted in a lower proportion of patients being classified as FEV 1 < 80% or FVC < 80% compared to the other equations. However, the Z-scores of FEV 1 and FVC were similar between the KNHANES-VI and GLI-2012 equations. Three reference equations exhibited significant associations between FEV 1 (%) and patient-reported outcomes (CAT score, SGRQ-C score, and 6MWD). Conclusion GLI-2012 reference equation may not accurately reflect FEV 1 (%) in the Korean population, but the Z-score using GLI-2012 equation can be a viable option for assessing FEV 1 and airflow limitation in COPD patients. Similar to the other two equations, the GLI-2012 equation demonstrated significant associations with PROs.

Objectives: This study aimed to present the Asia-Pacific consensus on long-term and sequential therapy for osteoporosis, offering evidence-based recommendations for the effective management of this chronic condition.The primary focus is on achieving optimal fracture prevention through a comprehensive, individualized approach. Methods: A panel of experts convened to develop consensus statements by synthesizing the current literature and leveraging clinical expertise. The review encompassed long-term anti-osteoporosis medication goals, first-line treatments for individuals at very high fracture risk, and the strategic integration of anabolic and anti resorptive agents in sequential therapy approaches. Results: The panelists reached a consensus on 12 statements. Key recommendations included advocating for anabolic agents as the first-line treatment for individuals at very high fracture risk and transitioning to anti resorptive agents following the completion of anabolic therapy. Anabolic therapy remains an option for in dividuals experiencing new fractures or persistent high fracture risk despite antiresorptive treatment. In cases of inadequate response, the consensus recommended considering a switch to more potent medications. The consensus also addressed the management of medication-related complications, proposing alternatives instead of discontinuation of treatment. Conclusions This consensus provides a comprehensive, cost-effective strategy for fracture prevention with an emphasis on shared decision-making and the incorporation of country-specific case management systems, such as fracture liaison services. It serves as a valuable guide for healthcare professionals in the Asia-Pacific region, contributing to the ongoing evolution of osteoporosis management.

Background: As the number of large-scale studies involving multiple organizations producing data has steadily increased, an integrated system for a common interoperable format is needed. In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a number of global efforts are underway to develop vaccines and therapeutics. We are therefore observing an explosion in the proliferation of COVID-19 data, and interoperability is highly requested in multiple institutions participating simultaneously in COVID-19 pandemic research. Results: In this study, a laboratory information management system (LIMS) approach has been adopted to systemically manage various COVID-19 non-clinical trial data, including mortality, clinical signs, body weight, body temperature, organ weights, viral titer (viral replication and viral RNA), and multiorgan histopathology, from multiple institutions based on a web interface. The main aim of the implemented system is to integrate, standardize, and organize data collected from laboratories in multiple institutes for COVID-19 non-clinical efficacy testings. Six animal biosafety level 3 institutions proved the feasibility of our system. Substantial benefits were shown by maximizing collaborative high-quality non-clinical research. Conclusions This LIMS platform can be used for future outbreaks, leading to accelerated medical product development through the systematic management of extensive data from non-clinical animal studies.

Purpose: Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (LPG-DTR) is a function-preserving procedure performed for treating upper early gastric cancer (EGC).However, few studies have compared the outcomes of LPG-DTR with those of laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). This study aimed at comparing the short-term outcomes of LPGDTR between LTG and upper EGC. Materials and Methods: For upper-third EGC, a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial was performed to compare those who underwent LPG-DTR with those who underwent LTG. Short-term outcomes, including clinicopathologic results, morbidity, mortality, and postoperative courses, were evaluated using a full analysis set based on the intention-to-treat principle and the per-protocol set. Results: Of the patients, 138 who fulfilled the criteria were randomized to each group. One patient in the LPG-DTR group withdrew consent. Sixty-eight patients underwent LPGDTR and 69 underwent LTG. The operative time (LPG-DTR=219.4 minutes; LTG=201.8 minutes; P=0.085), estimated blood loss (LPG-DTR=76.0 mL; LTG=66.1 mL; P=0.413), and the morbidity rate (LPG-DTR=23.5%; LTG=17.4%; P=0.373) between the groups were not significantly different. No mortality occurred in either of the study groups. Two weeks post operation, the Visick scores for postprandial symptoms, including reflux symptoms, were not significantly different between the groups (P=0.749). Laboratory findings on postoperative day 5 were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusions The short-term outcomes of LPG-DTR for upper EGC were comparable to those of LTG.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02892643

Purpose: There are few reports on outcomes following surgical repair of recurrent rectal prolapse. The purpose of this study was to examine surgical outcomes for recurrent rectal prolapse. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. This study used data collected by the Korean Anorectal Physiology and Pelvic Floor Disorder Study Group. Results: A total of 166 patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were registered retrospectively between 2011 and 2016 in 8 referral hospitals. Among them, 153 patients were finally enrolled, excluding 13 patients who were not followed up postoperatively. Median follow-up duration was 40 months (range, 0.2–129.3 months). Methods of surgical repair for recurrent rectal prolapse included perineal approach (n = 96) and abdominal approach (n = 57). Postoperative complications occurred in 16 patients (10.5%). There was no significant difference in complication rate between perineal and abdominal approach groups. While patients who underwent the perineal approach were older and more fragile, patients who underwent the abdominal approach had longer operation time and admission days (P < 0.05). Overall, 29 patients (19.0%) showed re-recurrence after surgery. Among variables, none affected the re-recurrence. Conclusion For the recurrent rectal prolapse, the perineal approach is used for the old and fragile patients. The postoperative complications and re-recurrence rate between perineal and abdominal approach were not different significantly. No factor including surgical method affected re-recurrence for recurrent rectal prolapse.

Background and Objectives: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-STsegment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Methods: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. Results: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48– 0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48–2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). Conclusions Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.