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: Acute deterioration of patients in general wards often leads to major adverse events (MAEs), including unplanned intensive care unit transfers, cardiac arrest, or death. Traditional early warning scores (EWSs) have shown limited predictive accuracy, with frequent false positives. We conducted a prospective observational external validation study of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based EWS, the VitalCare - Major Adverse Event Score (VC-MAES), at a tertiary medical center in the Republic of Korea. Methods: Adult patients from general wards, including internal medicine (IM) and obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN)—the latter were rarely investigated in prior AI-based EWS studies—were included. The VC-MAES predictions were compared with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) predictions using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and logistic regression for baseline EWS values. False-positives per true positive (FPpTP) were assessed based on the power threshold. Results: Of 6,039 encounters, 217 (3.6%) had MAEs (IM: 9.5%, OBGYN: 0.26%). Six hours prior to MAEs, the VC-MAES achieved an AUROC of 0.918 and an AUPRC of 0.352, including the OBGYN subgroup (AUROC, 0.964; AUPRC, 0.388), outperforming the NEWS (0.797 and 0.124) and MEWS (0.722 and 0.079). The FPpTP was reduced by up to 71%. Baseline VC-MAES was strongly associated with MAEs (P<0.001). Conclusions The VC-MAES significantly outperformed traditional EWSs in predicting adverse events in general ward patients. The robust performance and lower FPpTP suggest that broader adoption of the VC-MAES may improve clinical efficiency and resource allocation in general wards.

Background: The optimal duration and net clinical benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have not been elucidated in realworld situations. Methods: Using nationwide claims data from 2013 to 2021, we selected patients who underwent TAVR and categorized them into two groups: short- and long-term (≤ 3 and > 3 months, respectively) DAPT group. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, any coronary and peripheral revascularization, systemic thromboembolism, and bleeding events, at 1 year. Survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Patients who met the inclusion criteria (1,695) were selected. Propensity score matching yielded 1,215 pairs of patients: 416 and 799 in the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. In the unmatched cohort, the mean ages were 79.8 ± 6.1 and 79.7 ± 5.8 years for the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. In the matched cohort, the mean ages were 80.6 ± 5.9 and 79.9 ± 5.9 years for the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. Over one year in the unmatched cohort, the NACE incidence was 11.9% and 11.5% in the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively (P = 0.893). The all-cause mortality rates were 7.4% and 4.7% (P = 0.042), composite ischemic event rates were 2.5% and 4.7% (P = 0.056), and bleeding event rates were 2.7% and 4.7% (P = 0.056) in the shortand long-term groups, respectively. In the matched cohort, the incidence of NACE was 9.6% in the short-term DAPT group and 11.6% in the long-term DAPT group, respectively (P = 0.329).The all-cause mortality rates were 6.5% and 4.9% (P = 0.298), composite ischemic event rates were 1.4% and 4.5% (P = 0.009), and bleeding event rates were 2.2% and 4.4% (P = 0.072) in the short- and long-term groups, respectively. Conclusion In patients who successfully underwent transfemoral TAVR, the short- and longterm DAPT groups exhibited similar one-year NACE rates. However, patients in the long-term DAPT group experienced more bleeding and ischemic events.

Background: The optimal duration and net clinical benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have not been elucidated in realworld situations. Methods: Using nationwide claims data from 2013 to 2021, we selected patients who underwent TAVR and categorized them into two groups: short- and long-term (≤ 3 and > 3 months, respectively) DAPT group. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, any coronary and peripheral revascularization, systemic thromboembolism, and bleeding events, at 1 year. Survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Patients who met the inclusion criteria (1,695) were selected. Propensity score matching yielded 1,215 pairs of patients: 416 and 799 in the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. In the unmatched cohort, the mean ages were 79.8 ± 6.1 and 79.7 ± 5.8 years for the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. In the matched cohort, the mean ages were 80.6 ± 5.9 and 79.9 ± 5.9 years for the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively. Over one year in the unmatched cohort, the NACE incidence was 11.9% and 11.5% in the short- and long-term DAPT groups, respectively (P = 0.893). The all-cause mortality rates were 7.4% and 4.7% (P = 0.042), composite ischemic event rates were 2.5% and 4.7% (P = 0.056), and bleeding event rates were 2.7% and 4.7% (P = 0.056) in the shortand long-term groups, respectively. In the matched cohort, the incidence of NACE was 9.6% in the short-term DAPT group and 11.6% in the long-term DAPT group, respectively (P = 0.329).The all-cause mortality rates were 6.5% and 4.9% (P = 0.298), composite ischemic event rates were 1.4% and 4.5% (P = 0.009), and bleeding event rates were 2.2% and 4.4% (P = 0.072) in the short- and long-term groups, respectively. Conclusion In patients who successfully underwent transfemoral TAVR, the short- and longterm DAPT groups exhibited similar one-year NACE rates. However, patients in the long-term DAPT group experienced more bleeding and ischemic events.