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.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

Background: Coronary artery disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often exhibit reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the impact of LV dysfunction status in conjunction with platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes has not been previously investigated. Methods: From the multicenter PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term prognosis in DES-treated patients) consortium, the patients were classified as preserved-EF (PEF: LVEF ≥ 50%) and reduced-EF (REF: LVEF< 5 0%) group by echocardiography. Platelet reactivity was measured using VerifyNow P2Y 12 assay and high platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as PRU ≥ 252. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at 5 years after PCI. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3–5. Results: A total of 13,160 patients from PTRG-DES, 9,319 (79.6%) patients with the results of both PRU and LVEF were analyzed. The incidence of MACCE and major bleeding was higher in REF group as compared with PEF group (MACCEs: hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85–2.55; major bleeding: HR 1.78, P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.39–2.78).The highest rate of MACCEs was found in patients with REF and HPR, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (HR 3.14 in REF(+)/HPR(+) vs. PEF(+)/HPR(-) group,P <0.01, 95% CI 2.51–3.91). The frequency of major bleeding was not associated with the HPR in either group. Conclusion LV dysfunction was associated with an increased incidence of MACCEs and major bleeding in patients who underwent PCI. The HPR status further exhibited significant increase of MACCEs in patients with LV dysfunction in a large, real-world registry.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028

Background: Rosacea is a chronic skin inflammatory disorder that almost always occurs on the face, which can cause emotional stress and affect self-esteem. Rosacea is associated with psychiatric disorders, but there have been few studies on the relationship between rosacea and psychiatric disorders in Koreans. Objective: We aimed to investigate the risk of psychiatric disorders in Korean patients with rosacea. Methods: Data were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort. The database was collected according to the Korean Standard Classification of Diseases version 6, which is based on the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision. This study was conducted with 595 patients diagnosed with rosacea from 2002 to 2013. A total of 2,380 controls were set by performing 1:4 matching for sex, age, and index year. Results: The incidence of psychiatric disorders was higher in patients with rosacea (114/595, 19.16%) than in patients without rosacea (319/2,380, 13.40%), with a significant difference (p＜0.001). Among several types of psychiatric disorders, the prevalence of anxiety disorder and behavioral disorder was significantly higher in the rosacea patients than in patients without rosacea (p=0.008 and p=0.044, respectively). The adjusted hazard ratio for psychiatric disorders in patients with rosacea was 1.543 (95% confidence interval=1.238∼1.922, p＜0.001). Conclusion Rosacea is associated with many types of psychiatric disorders. Awareness of the psychological impact of rosacea might be helpful in improving patient quality of life.