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: 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/Aims: The ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) response score (URS) was developed to identify poor responders to UDCA before treatment, in order to offer timely and proactive intervention. However, validation of the URS in Asian population is warranted. Methods: A total of 173 Asian patients diagnosed with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) between 2007 and 2016 at seven academic institutions in Korea who started UDCA treatment were analyzed to validate the performance of URS. UDCA response was defined as an alkaline phosphatase level less than 1.67 times the upper limit of normal after 1-year of UDCA treatment. In addition, prognostic performance of URS for liver-related events, defined as newly developed hepatic decompensation or hepatocellular carcinoma was evaluated. Results: After 1 year of UDCA treatment, 133 patients (76.9%) achieved UDCA response. UDCAresponse rate was 98.7% for those with URS ≥1.41 (n=76) and 58.8% for those with URS <1.41(n=97). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of URS in predicting UDCAresponse was 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.88). During a median follow-up of 6.5years, liver-related events developed in 18 patients (10.4%). Among 117 patients with PBC stage I-III by histological evaluation, the 5-year liver-related event-free survival rate differed accordingto the URS; 100% for URS ≥1.41 and 86.5% for URS <1.41 (p=0.005). Conclusions URS demonstrated good performance in predicting a UDCA treatment response in Asian PBC patients. In addition, the risk of liver-related events differed according to the URS for the PBC stage. Thus, URS can be used to predict the response and clinical outcome in patients with PBC.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to investigate whether pretransplant frailty can predict postoperative morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation (LT) in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 242 patients who underwent LT between 2018 and 2020 at a tertiary hospital in Korea. Results: Among them, 189 patients (78.1%) received LT from a living donor. Physical frailty at baseline was assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), by which patientswere categorized into two groups: frail (SPPB <10) and non-frail (SPPB ≥10). Among the whole cohort (age, 55.0±9.2 years; male, 165 [68.2%]), 182 patients were classified as non-frail and 60 patients were classified as frail. Posttransplant survival was shorter in the frail group than the non-frail group (9.3 months vs 11.6 months). Postoperative intensive care unit stay was longer in the frail group than in the non-frail group (median, 6 days vs 4 days), and the 30-day complication rate was higher in the frail group than in the non-frail group (78.3% vs 59.3%). Frailty was an independent risk factor for posttransplant mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 5.57). In subgroup analysis, frail patients showed lower posttransplant survival regardless of history of hepatocellular carcinoma and donor type. Conclusions Assessment of pretransplant frailty, as measured by SPPB, provides important prognostic information for clinical outcomes in cirrhotic patients undergoing LT.

In primary prevention for cardiovascular diseases, there are significant barriers to adherence including freedom from symptoms, long latency for therapeutic benefits, life-long duration of treatment, and need for combined lifestyle changes. However, to implement more systematic approaches, the focus on adherence improvement needs to be shifted away from patient factors to the effects of the treatment team and healthcare system. In addition to conventional educational approaches, more patient-oriented approaches such as patientcentered clinical communication skills, counseling using motivational strategies, decisionmaking by patient empowerment, and a multi-disciplinary team approach should be developed and implemented. Patients should be involved in a program of self-monitoring, self-management, and active counseling. Because most effective interventions on adherence improvement demand greater resources, the health care system and educational or training system of physicians and healthcare staff need to be supported for systematic improvement.

Background and Objectives: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-STsegment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Methods: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. Results: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48– 0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48–2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). Conclusions Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.