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: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Background: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Background: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Background: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.

Background: Midfacial fractures frequently involve the maxillary sinus, leading to maxillary sinus pathology. We aimed to examine the incidence and contributing factors of maxillary sinus pathology in patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for midfacial fractures. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent ORIF for midfacial fractures at our department over the past 10 years. The incidence of maxillary sinus pathology was identified clinically and/or by computed tomography findings. Factors that significantly influenced the groups with and without maxillary sinus pathology were examined. Results: The incidence of maxillary sinus pathology in patients who underwent ORIF for midfacial fractures was found to be 11.27%, with sinusitis being the most common pathology. Maxillary sinus pathology was significantly associated with the presence of a blowout fracture involving both the medial and the inferior orbital walls. Factors such as sex, age, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, smoking, inflammatory disease, follow-up period, use of absorbable plates, and use of titanium plates did not have a significant impact on the development of maxillary sinus pathology. Conclusion The incidence of maxillary sinus pathology in patients who underwent ORIF for midfacial fractures was relatively low, and in most cases, it resolved without the need for specific treatment. Consequently, there may not be a significant need for concern regarding postoperative maxillary sinus pathology.