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.

There are limited data on outcomes after implantation of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in East Asian patients with small vessel coronary lesions. A total of 1,600 patients treated with XIENCE EES (Abbott Vascular, CA, USA) were divided into the small vessel group treated with one ≤2.5 mm stent (n=119) and the non-small vessel group treated with one ≥2.75 mm stent (n=933). The primary end point was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization at 12 months. The key secondary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome (DOCO), a composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel MI, and target lesion revascularization at 12 months. The small vessel group was more often female, hypertensive, less likely to present with ST-elevation MI, and more often treated for the left circumflex artery, whereas the non-small vessel group more often had type B2/C lesions, underwent intravascular ultrasound, and received unfractionated heparin. In the propensity matched cohort, the mean stent diameter was 2.5±0.0 mm and 3.1±0.4 mm in the small and non-small vessel groups, respectively. Propensity-adjusted POCO at 12 months was 6.0% in the small vessel group and 4.3% in the non-small vessel group (p=0.558). There was no significant difference in DOCO at 12 months (small vessel group: 4.3% and non-small vessel group: 1.7%, p=0.270).Outcomes of XIENCE EES for small vessel disease were comparable to those for non-small vessel disease at 12-month clinical follow-up in real-world Korean patients.

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.

Background/Aims: While switching strategies of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (RIs) have sometimes been used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients, the current status of in-hospital P2Y12RI switching remains unknown. Methods: Overall, 8,476 AMI patients who underwent successful revascularization from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH) were divided according to in-hospital P2Y12RI strategies, and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding during hospitalization were compared. Results: Patients with in-hospital P2Y12RI switching accounted for 16.5%, of which 867 patients were switched from clopidogrel to potent P2Y12RI (C-P) and 532 patients from potent P2Y12RI to clopidogrel (P-C). There were no differences in NACEs among the unchanged clopidogrel, the unchanged potent P2Y12RIs, and the P2Y12RI switching groups. However, compared to the unchanged clopidogrel group, the C-P group had a higher incidence of non-fatal MI, and the P-C group had a higher incidence of TIMI major bleeding. In clinical events of in-hospital P2Y12RI switching, 90.9% of non-fatal MI occurred during pre-switching clopidogrel administration, 60.7% of TIMI major bleeding was related to pre-switching P2Y12RIs, and 71.4% of TIMI major bleeding was related to potent P2Y12RIs. Only 21.6% of the P2Y12RI switching group switched to P2Y12RIs after a loading dose (LD); however, there were no differences in clinical events between patients with and without LD. Conclusions In-hospital P2Y12RI switching occurred occasionally, but had relatively similar clinical outcomes compared to unchanged P2Y12RIs in Korean AMI patients. Non-fatal MI and bleeding appeared to be mainly related to pre-switching P2Y12RIs.

Background/Aims: Minimising total ischemic time (TIT) is important for improving clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). TIT has not shown a significant improvement due to persistent pre-hospital delay. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors associated with pre-hospital delay. Methods: Individuals enrolled in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health between 2011 and 2015 were included in this study. The study population was analyzed according to the symptom-to-door time (STDT; within 60 or > 60 minutes), and according to the type of hospital visit (emergency medical services [EMS], non-PCI center, or PCI center). Results: A total of 4,874 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 28.4% arrived at the hospital within 60 minutes of symptom-onset. Old age (> 65 years), female gender, and renewed ischemia were independent predictors of delayed STDT. Utilising EMS was the only factor shown to reduce STDT within 60 minutes, even when cardiogenic shock was evident. The overall frequency of EMS utilisation was low (21.7%). Female gender was associated with not utilising EMS, whereas cardiogenic shock, previous myocardial infarction, familial history of ischemic heart disease, and off-hour visits were associated with utilising EMS. Conclusions Factors associated with delayed STDT and not utilising EMS could be targets for preventive intervention to improve STDT and TIT.

Background/Aims: Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL) are catecholamine-producing tumors that can cause blood pressure (BP) elevation and cardiovascular complications. Clinical presentation of these tumors may be changed through widespread use of imaging studies, which enables detection of PPGLs before onset of symptoms. We investigated clinical profiles of patients with surgically resected PPGLs. Methods: From 2005 to 2017, 111 consecutive patients with surgically resected PPGLs in two tertiary hospitals in Korea were studied. Results: Mean age was 52 ± 16 years, 57 patients (51.4%) were male and 54 (48.6%) were hypertensive. Twenty-nine PPGLs (26.1%) were extra-adrenal paragangliomas. Sixteen (14.4%) and seven patients (6.3%) (Group 1, n = 23) were diagnosed during work-up of hypertension and transient cardiomyopathy respectively, and the remainder (Group 2, n = 88) were incidentalomas detected during routine abdominal imaging. Patients in the Group 1 were younger and more frequently symptomatic, and had higher BPs, heart rates and levels of urinary catecholamines than those in the Group 2. Paragangliomas were less frequent and secretion of epinephrine and metanephrine was more predominant in the Group 1 than in Group 2. After the surgical resections, 18.2% of patients still needed antihypertensive medications. Conclusions Out of 111 patients with surgically resected PPGLs, 88 (79.3%) were diagnosed as incidentalomas. Seven patients presented with transient cardiomyopathy and 16 with hypertension. Tumor location and secretion of catecholamine may vary depending on the presence of symptoms.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of data regarding the benefit of clopidogrel monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES). This study compared outcome between clopidogrel versus aspirin as monotherapy after DES for acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: From Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database, 1,819 patients treated with DES who were switched to monotherapy with clopidogrel (n=534) or aspirin (n=1,285) after uneventful 12-month DAPT were analyzed. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, MI, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding during the period from 12 to 24 months. RESULTS: After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients who received clopidogrel, compared with those treated with aspirin, had a similar incidence of NACE (0.7% and 0.7%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–3.60; p=0.923). The 2 groups had similar rates of death from any cause (0.1% in each group, p=0.789), MI (0.3% and 0.1%, respectively; p=0.226), repeat PCI (0.1% and 0.3%, respectively; p=0.548), stent thrombosis (0.1% and 0%, respectively; p=0.121), major bleeding (0.2% in each group, p=0.974), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (0.5% in each group, p=0.924). CONCLUSIONS Monotherapy with clopidogrel, compared to aspirin, after DAPT showed similar clinical outcomes in patients with acute MI treated with DES.