Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background: Currently, non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) monotherapy has been suggested as the optimal antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) beyond one year after coronary revascularization. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between NOAC monotherapy and NOAC plus antiplatelet combination therapy using realworld data. Methods: Between 2015 and 2020, patients with AF who had received NOACs beyond one year after coronary revascularization were enrolled from Korean national insurance data. We emulated a pragmatic sequence of trials between the NOAC monotherapy and the antiplatelet combination therapy followed by propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Results: Among 206,407 person-trials from 4,465 individuals, we compared 3,275 pairs of the monotherapy and the matched combination therapy. During a median follow-up of 1.24 years, the incidence rate of MACCE was 19.4% and 20.0% per patient-year in the monotherapy group and the antiplatelet combination group, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–1.05; P = 0.422). Compared with the antiplatelet combination group, the monotherapy group had a significantly lower incidence rate of major bleeding, defined as intracranial bleeding or gastrointestinal bleeding requiring hospitalization (2.8% vs. 3.6% per patient-year; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62–0.97; P = 0.024). Conclusion As an antithrombotic therapy for AF beyond one year after coronary revascularization, NOAC monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of MACCE and a lower risk of major bleeding compared to NOAC plus antiplatelet combination therapy.

Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) has been increasing in recent years, CTO PCI is still one of the most challenging procedures with relatively higher rates of procedural complications and adverse clinical events after PCI. Due to the innate limitations of invasive coronary angiography, intravascular imaging (IVI) has been used as an adjunctive tool to complement PCI, especially in complex coronary artery disease. Considering the complexity of CTO lesions, the role of IVI is particularly important in CTO intervention. IVI has been a useful adjunctive tool in every step of CTO PCI including assisted wire crossing, confirmation of wire location within CTO segment, and stent optimization. The meticulous use of IVI has been one of the greatest contributors to recent progress of CTO PCI. Nevertheless, studies evaluating the role of IVI during CTO PCI are limited. The current review provides a comprehensive overview of the mechanistic advantages of IVI in CTO PCI, summarizes previous studies and trials, and presents future perspective of IVI in CTO PCI.

Background: s: Fimasartan is the most recently developed, potent, and long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). However, data are limited regarding treatment effects of fimasartan in patients with heart failure. Methods: Between 2010 and 2016, patients who underwent coronary revascularization for myocardial infarction (MI) with heart failure and prescription of ARB at hospital discharge were enrolled from the Korean nationwide medical insurance data. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients receiving fimasartan and those receiving other ARBs (candesartan, valsartan, losartan, telmisartan, olmesartan, and irbesartan). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke. Results: Of 2,802 eligible patients, fimasartan was prescribed to 124 patients (4.4%). During a median follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 1.0–3.9), 613 events of the primary outcome occurred. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between patients receiving fimasartan and those receiving other ARBs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46–1.45). Compared with patients receiving other ARBs, those receiving fimasartan had comparable incidence of all-cause death (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.30–1.63), recurrent MI (adjusted HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.49–3.34), hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27–1.84), and stroke (adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.18–1.96). Conclusion In this nationwide cohort, fimasartan, compared with other ARBs, had comparable treatment effects for a composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke in patients with heart failure after MI.

Background: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the SMART-CHOICE trial, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after three months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) achieved clinical outcomes comparable to those of 12 months of DAPT.Nonetheless, the effects of sex on these outcomes remain unknown. Methods: This open-label, non-inferiority, randomized study, conducted in 33 hospitals in South Korea, included 2,993 patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. Patients were randomly assigned to receive DAPT (aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor) for three months then P2Y12 inhibitor alone for nine months, or DAPT for the entire 12 months. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) 12 months after the index procedure. The bleeding endpoints were Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding types 2 to 5. Results: Of the patients, 795 (26.6%) were women, who were older and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia than men. The sexes exhibited comparable primary endpoints (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–1.55; P = 0.770) and bleeding endpoints (adjusted HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.63–1.81; P = 0.811). P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs DAPT was associated with lower risk of BARC type 2 to 5 bleeding in women (adjusted HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16–0.98; P = 0.045) but the difference was not statistically significant when using the Bonferroni correction. The primary endpoints were similar between treatment groups in both sexes. Conclusion In both sexes undergoing PCI, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after three months of DAPT achieved similar risks of the primary endpoints and the bleeding events compared with prolonged DAPT. Therefore, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal with ongoing P2Y12 inhibitors may be comparable in women and men.

The introduction of device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) in the beginning of 21st century has revolutionized the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the small intestine. In contrast to capsule endoscopy, the other main diagnostic modality of the small bowel diseases, DAE has the unique advantages of observing the region of interest in detail and enabling tissue acquisition and therapeutic intervention. As DAE becomes an essential procedure in daily clinical practice, there is an increasing need for correct guidelines on when and how to perform it and what technical factors should be considered. In response to these needs, the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases developed an expert consensus statement on the performance of DAE by reviewing the current evidence. This expert consensus statement particularly focuses on the indications, choice of insertion route, therapeutic intervention, complications, and relevant technical points.

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.