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: Accumulating evidence shows that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, whether SGLT2i, compared with other antidiabetic drugs, reduce the new development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. In this study, we compared SGLT2i with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) in terms of reduction in the risk of AF in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Methods: We included 42,786 propensity score-matched pairs of SGLT2i and DPP-4i users without previous AF diagnosis using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database between May 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Results: During a median follow-up of 1.3 years, SGLT2i users had a lower incidence of AF than DPP-4i users (1.95 vs. 2.65 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–0.97; p=0.028]). In individuals without heart failure, SGLT2i users was associated with a decreased risk of AF incidence (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52–0.94; p=0.019) compared to DPP-4i users. However, individuals with heart failure, SGLT2i users was not significantly associated with a change in risk (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.44–2.44; p=0.936). Conclusions In this nationwide cohort study of individuals with type 2 diabetes, treatment with SGLT2i was associated with a lower risk of AF compared with treatment with DPP-4i.

Background: Recent reports have suggested that pneumonitis is a rare complication following vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).However, its clinical features and outcomes are not well known. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with vaccine-associated pneumonitis following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: In this nationwide multicenter survey study, questionnaires were distributed to pulmonary physicians in referral hospitals. They were asked to report cases of development or exacerbation of interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. Vaccine-associated pneumonitis was defined as new pulmonary infiltrates documented on chest computed tomography within 4 weeks of vaccination and exclusion of other possible etiologies. Results: From the survey, 49 cases of vaccine-associated pneumonitis were identified between February 27 and October 30, 2021. After multidisciplinary discussion, 46 cases were analyzed. The median age was 66 years and 28 (61%) were male. The median interval between vaccination and respiratory symptoms was 5 days. There were 20 (43%), 17 (37%), and nine (19%) patients with newly identified pneumonitis, exacerbation of pre-diagnosed ILD, and undetermined pre-existing ILD, respectively. The administered vaccines were BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCov-19/AZD1222 each in 21 patients followed by mRNA-1273 in three, and Ad26.COV2.S in one patient. Except for five patients with mild disease, 41 (89%) patients were treated with corticosteroid. Significant improvement was observed in 26 (57%) patients including four patients who did not receive treatment. However, ILD aggravated in 9 (20%) patients despite treatment. Mortality was observed in eight (17%) patients. Conclusion These results suggest pneumonitis as a potentially significant safety concern for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical awareness and patient education are necessary for early recognition and prompt management. Additional research is warranted to identify the epidemiology and characterize the pathophysiology of vaccine-associated pneumonitis.

Background: A total of 8,303 individuals (4.3%) with adverse reactions (n=191,860) after vaccination developed serious conditions or died. Such health developments could cause people not vaccinated yet or waiting for a booster shot to become fearful of the vaccination. Methods: The 3-month (July–September 2021) clinical data of 41 patients from the family medicine department of a single medical center were analyzed retrospectively to determine risk factors and to investigate the clinical course to identify the cause of symptoms in detail. Results: A significant number of older adults aged over 50 years reported experiencing general weakness (P=0.026) but fewer incidences of fever than patients aged 50 years or younger (P=0.011). Eighteen of the 41 patients were requested to visit more than twice or consult a specialist. In 14 patients, the symptoms were explained by other medical causes. Conclusion The primary physician has a pivotal role in thoroughly evaluating patients who complain of adverseeffects after vaccination, considering the broad multitude of symptoms and medical conditions presented. To thoroughlyevaluate and appropriately advise patients with adverse reactions to their chosen vaccine, taking detailedmedical history and nutritional counseling are required to identify possible underlying causes, resolve symptoms,and educate them on self-care and regarding vaccines.