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.

The anticancer drugs have evolved significantly, spanning molecular targeted therapeutics (MTTs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Complications associated with these drugs vary widely based on their mechanisms of action. MTTs that target angiogenesis can often lead to complications related to ischemia or endothelial damage across various organs, whereas non-anti-angiogenic MTTs present unique complications derived from their specific pharmacological actions. ICIs are predominantly associated with immunerelated adverse events, such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, thyroid disorders, hypophysitis, and sarcoid-like reactions. CAR-T therapy causes unique and severe complications including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. ADCs tend to cause complications associated with cytotoxic payloads. A comprehensive understanding of these drug-specific toxicities, particularly using medical imaging, is essential for providing optimal patient care. Based on this knowledge, radiologists can play a pivotal role in multidisciplinary teams. Therefore, radiologists must stay up-to-date on the imaging characteristics of these complications and the mechanisms underlying novel anticancer drugs.

Background: and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4. Conclusion Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.

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: Understanding disparities in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes between people with disabilities (PwD) and people without disabilities (PwoD) is crucial, particularly when considering the heterogeneity within PwD and age differences.This study aimed to compare severe COVID-19 outcomes including deaths between PwD and PwoD with analyses stratified by age group and further examined by disability type. Methods: This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked data from national COVID-19 cases and health insurance for individuals aged ≥ 19 years with COVID-19 from January 2020 to October 2022 in the Republic of Korea. Severe outcomes included severe cases and deaths, with logistic regression analysis of the risk disparities between PwD and PwoD based on age group and disability types. The subgroup analysis considered epidemic periods, accounting for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant circulation. Results: The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes and deaths among PwD varied by age and disability type. While severe outcomes were most prevalent in the older age groups for both PwD and PwoD, younger PwD faced a markedly higher risk—up to eightfold—compared to PwoD. The risk of disability status was greater than that of comorbidities in the 19–39 age group. Among disability types, individuals with internal organs-related and intellectual disabilities showed higher risk disparities with PwoD in severe outcomes than other types of disabilities. Throughout the pandemic, the disparity in death risk remained similar, with a slight increase in disparity during the omicron period for all severe outcomes in the age groups 19–39 and 40–64 years. Conclusion Prioritizing younger PwD, along with older age groups and people with comorbidities, is crucial in addressing public health crises. Risk-based prioritization is important to reduce overall risk. This includes prioritizing people with nternal organs-related and intellectural disabilities, who face higher health risks among PwD during a pandemic when resources are limited and time is of the essence.

Background: There are few safe effective ways to relieve osteoarthritis (OA) pain; as a result, off-label psychotropic drug prescriptions have increased worldwide. This study examined the change in psychotropic drug prescriptions for patients with OA from 2011 to 2020 using the Korean National Health Insurance Service dataset. Methods: The study population consisted of patients with hip or knee OA aged ≥ 65 years.Psychotropic drugs included opioids, benzodiazepines, non-benzodiazepine hypnotics (Z-drugs), anti-epileptics, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), typical antipsychotics, atypical antipsychotics, and anxiolytics. The prevalence and long-term (> 3 months) prescription rates of psychotropic drugs in OA patients were calculated. Results: The study included 1,821,158 patients with OA (mean age 71.7 years; 65.32% female).Of the cohort, 49% had comorbidities for which psychotropics were indicated. The prevalence of psychotropic prescriptions decreased from 58.2% to 52.0% in 2018 and then leveled off.The long-term prescription rate remained constant until 2018 and then increased slightly.The most commonly prescribed psychotropics were opioids and long- and short-acting benzodiazepines. The prescription rates of opioids and long-acting benzodiazepines decreased from 2011 to 2020. For those with psychiatric co-morbidities, the prescription rates of anti-epileptics and SNRIs increased, while the prescription rates of anti-epileptics, SSRIs, other antidepressants, and atypical psychotropics increased for those without such co-morbidities. The most commonly prescribed psychotropics were diazepam and alprazolam, excluding tramadol and tramadol–acetaminophen combination. For those with psychiatric co-morbidities, the prescription rates of gabapentin and fentanyl increased, while for those without such co-morbidities, the prescription rates of lorazepam, fentanyl, escitalopram and quetiapine increased. Conclusion A significant number of older Korean patients with OA were prescribed psychotropic drugs in the absence of comorbidities requiring such drugs, including drugs that have little effect on OA and unfavorable safety profiles in older adults.

Background: Understanding disparities in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes between people with disabilities (PwD) and people without disabilities (PwoD) is crucial, particularly when considering the heterogeneity within PwD and age differences.This study aimed to compare severe COVID-19 outcomes including deaths between PwD and PwoD with analyses stratified by age group and further examined by disability type. Methods: This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked data from national COVID-19 cases and health insurance for individuals aged ≥ 19 years with COVID-19 from January 2020 to October 2022 in the Republic of Korea. Severe outcomes included severe cases and deaths, with logistic regression analysis of the risk disparities between PwD and PwoD based on age group and disability types. The subgroup analysis considered epidemic periods, accounting for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant circulation. Results: The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes and deaths among PwD varied by age and disability type. While severe outcomes were most prevalent in the older age groups for both PwD and PwoD, younger PwD faced a markedly higher risk—up to eightfold—compared to PwoD. The risk of disability status was greater than that of comorbidities in the 19–39 age group. Among disability types, individuals with internal organs-related and intellectual disabilities showed higher risk disparities with PwoD in severe outcomes than other types of disabilities. Throughout the pandemic, the disparity in death risk remained similar, with a slight increase in disparity during the omicron period for all severe outcomes in the age groups 19–39 and 40–64 years. Conclusion Prioritizing younger PwD, along with older age groups and people with comorbidities, is crucial in addressing public health crises. Risk-based prioritization is important to reduce overall risk. This includes prioritizing people with nternal organs-related and intellectural disabilities, who face higher health risks among PwD during a pandemic when resources are limited and time is of the essence.

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.

The anticancer drugs have evolved significantly, spanning molecular targeted therapeutics (MTTs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Complications associated with these drugs vary widely based on their mechanisms of action. MTTs that target angiogenesis can often lead to complications related to ischemia or endothelial damage across various organs, whereas non-anti-angiogenic MTTs present unique complications derived from their specific pharmacological actions. ICIs are predominantly associated with immunerelated adverse events, such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, thyroid disorders, hypophysitis, and sarcoid-like reactions. CAR-T therapy causes unique and severe complications including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. ADCs tend to cause complications associated with cytotoxic payloads. A comprehensive understanding of these drug-specific toxicities, particularly using medical imaging, is essential for providing optimal patient care. Based on this knowledge, radiologists can play a pivotal role in multidisciplinary teams. Therefore, radiologists must stay up-to-date on the imaging characteristics of these complications and the mechanisms underlying novel anticancer drugs.

For patients with edentulous maxillae, creating a prosthetic treatment plan involves considering anatomical factors, aesthetics, the patient’s financial situation, and oral hygiene capabilities. In this case, CAD-CAM technology was used to accurately plan implant placements for a full arch fixed restoration based on the design of the final prosthesis. A customized surgical guide ensured precise implant placement and a provisional restoration was created using CAD-CAM. The definitive prosthesis was then created based on the second provisional restoration that has been previously used and adjusted by the patient. This approach achieved an excellent functional and aesthetic outcome, highlighting the benefits of digital approach and its potential for further clinical applications.