Background: There are limited long-term clinical outcome data comparing first-generation (1G) versus second-generation (2G) drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with single-vessel disease (SVD). We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of 1G- and 2G-DES in SVD patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over 10 years of clinical follow-up. Methods: A total of 2,312 consecutive patients with SVD who underwent PCI with 1G-DES (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents, n = 811) or 2G-DES (zotarolimus [Endeavor, Endeavor Resolute]- or everolimus-eluting stents [Promus Element, Xience], n = 1,082) were enrolled.After propensity score matching, 2 matched groups (538 pairs) were generated. Study endpoints included individual and composite clinical outcomes through 10 years. Results: During the 10-year follow-up, the 2G-DES group had lower incidences of myocardial infarction (MI; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.92; P = 0.028) and target lesion revascularization (TLR; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32–0.91; P = 0.021) than the 1G-DES group. Rates of total death, cardiac death, non-target vessel revascularization, stroke, major adverse cardiac events, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between groups. Conclusions In our single-center, all-comer registry, 2G-DES were associated with lower incidence rates of MI and TLR compared to 1G-DES in SVD patients over 10 years of followup, indicating a safer and more durable effect than 1G-DES.

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: Ultimaster™, a third-generation sirolimus-eluting stent using biodegradable polymer, has been introduced to overcome long term adverse vascular events, such as restenosis or stent thrombosis. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes of Ultimaster™ stents in Korean patients with coronary artery disease. Methods: This study is a multicenter, prospective, observational registry across 12 hospitals. To reflect real-world clinical evidence, non-selective subtypes of patients and lesions were included in this study. The study end point was target lesion failure (TLF) (the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization [TLR]) at 12-month clinical follow up. Results: A total of 576 patients were enrolled between November 2016 and May 2021. Most of the patients were male (76.5%), with a mean age of 66.0±11.2 years. Among the included patients, 40.1% had diabetes mellitus (DM) and 67.9% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS).At 12 months, the incidence of TLF was 4.1%. The incidence of cardiac death was 1.5%, MI was 1.0%, TLR was 2.7%, and stent thrombosis was 0.6%. In subgroup analysis based on the presence of ACS, DM, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or bifurcation, there were no major differences in the incidence of the primary endpoint. Conclusions The present registry shows that Ultimaster™ stent is safe and effective for routine real-world clinical practice in non-selective Korean patients, having a low rate of adverse events at least up to 12 months.