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.

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

Background/Aims: Although anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) assay is widely used to screen for HCV infection, it has a high false-positive (FP) rate in low-risk populations. We investigated the accuracy of anti-HCV signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) ratio to distinguish true-positive (TP) from FP HCV infection. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 77,571 patients with anti-HCV results. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of anti-HCV S/CO ratio in anti-HCV positive patients. Results: Overall, 1,126 patients tested anti-HCV positive; 34.7% of patients were FP based on HCV RNA and/or recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) results. The age and sex-adjusted anti-HCV prevalence was 1.22%. We identified significant differences in serum aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase levels, anti-HCV S/CO ratio, and RIBA results between groups (viremia vs. non-viremia, TP vs. FP). Using ROC curves, the optimal cutoff values of anti-HCV S/CO ratio for HCV viremia and TP were 8 and 5, respectively. The area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 0.970 (95% CI, 0.959–0.982, p < 0.001), 99.7%, 87.5%, 87.4%, and 99.7%, respectively, for predicting HCV viremia at an anti-HCV S/CO ratio of 8 and 0.987 (95% CI, 0.980–0.994, p < 0.001), 95.3%, 94.7%, 97.1%, and 91.4%, respectively, for TP HCV infection at an anti-HCV S/CO ratio of 5. No patients with HCV viremia had an anti-HCV S/CO ratio below 5. Conclusions The anti-HCV S/CO ratio is highly accurate for discriminating TP from FP HCV infection and should be considered when diagnosing HCV infections.

Background: The risk of device thrombosis and device-oriented clinical outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was reported to be significantly higher than with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, optimal device implantation may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving BVS. The current study evaluated mid-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS with meticulous device optimization under intravascular imaging guidance. Methods: The SMART-REWARD and PERSPECTIVE-PCI registries in Korea prospectively enrolled 390 patients with BVS and 675 patients with DES, respectively. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years and the secondary major endpoint was patientoriented composite outcome (POCO) at 2 years. Results: Patient-level pooled analysis evaluated 1,003 patients (377 patients with BVS and 626 patients with DES). Mean scaffold diameter per lesion was 3.24 ± 0.30 mm in BVS group.Most BVSs were implanted with pre-dilatation (90.9%), intravascular imaging guidance (74.9%), and post-dilatation (73.1%) at proximal to mid segment (81.9%) in target vessel.Patients treated with BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF (2.9% vs. 3.7%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.283, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487–3.378, P = 0.615) and 2-year POCO (4.5% vs. 5.9%, adjusted HR, 1.413, 95% CI, 0.663–3.012,P = 0.370) than those with DES. The rate of 2-year definite or probable device thrombosis (0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.424) was also similar. The sensitivity analyses consistently showed comparable risk of TVF and POCO between the 2 groups. Conclusion With meticulous device optimization under imaging guidance and avoidance of implantation in small vessels, BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF and device thrombosis with DES.