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: Nilotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety for frontline and 2nd line treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (Ph+ CML). This study aimed to confirm the safety and efficacy of nilotinib in routine clinical practice within South Korea. Methods: An open-label, multicenter, single-arm, 12-week observational post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was conducted on 669 Korean adult patients with Ph + CML from December 24, 2010, to December 23, 2016. The patients received nilotinib treatment in routine clinical practice settings. Safety was evaluated by all types of adverse events (AEs) during the study period, and efficacy was evaluated by the complete hematological response (CHR) and cytogenetic response. Results: During the study period, AEs occurred in 61.3% (410 patients, 973 events), adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in 40.5% (271/669 patients, 559 events), serious AEs in 4.5% (30 patients, 37 events), and serious ADRs in 0.7% (5 patients, 8 events). Furthermore, unexpected AEs occurred at a rate of 6.9% (46 patients, 55 events) and unexpected ADRs at 1.2% (8 patients, 8 events). As for the efficacy results, CHR was achieved in 89.5% (442/494 patients), and minor cytogenetic response or major cytogenetic response was achieved in 85.8% (139/162 patients). Conclusion This PMS study shows consistent results in terms of safety and efficacy compared with previous studies. Nilotinib was well tolerated and efficacious in adult Korean patients with Ph + CML in routine clinical practice settings.

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare but life-threatening complication. VITT strongly mimics heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and shares clinical features. Heparin is commonly used to prevent coagulation during hemodialysis.Therefore, nephrologists might encounter patients needing dialysis with a history of heparin exposure who developed thrombotic thrombocytopenia after vaccination. A 70-year-old male presented with acute kidney injury and altered mental status due to lithium intoxication. He needed consecutive hemodialysis using heparin. Deep vein thrombosis of left lower extremity and accompanying severe thrombocytopenia of 15,000/µL on 24 days after vaccination and at the same time, nine days after heparin use. Anti-platelet factor 4 antibody test was positive.Anticoagulation with apixaban and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) infusion resolved swelling of his left calf and thrombocytopenia. There were no definitive diagnostic tools capable of differentiating between VITT and HIT in this patient. Although VITT and HIT share treatment with IVIG and non-heparin anticoagulation, distinguishing between VITT and HIT will make it possible to establish a follow-up vaccination plan in a person who has had a thrombocytopenic thrombotic event. Further research is needed to develop the tools to make a clear distinction between the clinical syndromes.

Purpose: We analyzed the clinical factors and surgical outcomes of patients with intermittent exotropia exhibiting high hyperopia and emmetropia. Methods: Patients with intermittent exotropia who underwent strabismus surgery and were followed-up for at least one year between April 1999 and January 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups according to their preoperative spherical equivalent refractive error (SERE): a high hyperopia group (≥+4.00 diopters [D], group 1) and an emmetropia group (+0.50 to -0.50 D, group 2). The surgical outcomes of the groups were compared. Results: We enrolled 74 patients, of whom 24 and 50 were included in groups 1 and 2, respectively. In group 1, the mean SERE was +5.00 D (+4.00 to +8.00 D) in the more affected eye and +2.81 D (+0.00 to +7.25 D) in the better eye. In group 1, the changes in SERE at one year after surgery were as follows: +1.24 D in the worse eye and +0.90 D in the better eye (both, p < 0.001). The mean exodeviation at one day postoperatively for distance and near were -1.25 prism diopters (PD) and 0.21 PD, respectively, in group 1, and -4.62 PD and -2.16 PD in group 2. Thus, group 1 exhibited less exodeviation in terms of both distance and near than did group 2 on day one postoperatively. However, no significant group difference was evident at one year postoperatively. Conclusions The surgical outcomes of intermittent exotropia patients with high hyperopia did not differ from those of patients with emmetropia.

Pancreatitis, panniculitis, and polyarthritis (PPP) syndrome is a rare but critical disease with a high mortality rate. The diagnostic dilemma of PPP syndrome is the fact that symptoms occur unexpectedly. A 48-year-old man presented with fever and painful swelling of the left foot that was initially mistaken for cellulitis and gouty arthritis. The diagnosis of PPP syndrome was made based on the abdominal CT findings and elevated pancreatic enzyme levels, lobular panniculitis with ghost cells on a skin biopsy, and polyarthritis on a bone scan. The pancreatitis and panniculitis disappeared spontaneously over time, but the polyarthritis followed its own course despite the use of anti-inflammatory agents. In addition to this case, 30 cases of PPP syndrome in the English literature were reviewed. Most of the patients had initial symptoms other than abdominal pain, leading to misdiagnosis. About one-third of them were finally diagnosed with a pancreatic tumor, of which pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma was the most dominant. They showed a mortality rate of 32.3%, associated mainly with the pancreatic malignancy. Therefore, PPP syndrome should be considered when cutaneous or osteoarticular manifestations occur in patients with pancreatitis. Active investigation and continued observations are needed for patients suspected of PPP syndrome.
Abdominal Pain ; Anti-Inflammatory Agents ; Arthritis ; Arthritis, Gouty ; Biopsy ; Carcinoma, Acinar Cell ; Cellulitis ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic Errors ; Fever ; Foot ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; Pancreatic Neoplasms ; Pancreatitis ; Panniculitis ; Skin ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed

Pancreatitis, panniculitis, and polyarthritis (PPP) syndrome is a rare but critical disease with a high mortality rate. The diagnostic dilemma of PPP syndrome is the fact that symptoms occur unexpectedly. A 48-year-old man presented with fever and painful swelling of the left foot that was initially mistaken for cellulitis and gouty arthritis. The diagnosis of PPP syndrome was made based on the abdominal CT findings and elevated pancreatic enzyme levels, lobular panniculitis with ghost cells on a skin biopsy, and polyarthritis on a bone scan. The pancreatitis and panniculitis disappeared spontaneously over time, but the polyarthritis followed its own course despite the use of anti-inflammatory agents. In addition to this case, 30 cases of PPP syndrome in the English literature were reviewed. Most of the patients had initial symptoms other than abdominal pain, leading to misdiagnosis. About one-third of them were finally diagnosed with a pancreatic tumor, of which pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma was the most dominant. They showed a mortality rate of 32.3%, associated mainly with the pancreatic malignancy. Therefore, PPP syndrome should be considered when cutaneous or osteoarticular manifestations occur in patients with pancreatitis. Active investigation and continued observations are needed for patients suspected of PPP syndrome.
Abdominal Pain ; Anti-Inflammatory Agents ; Arthritis ; Arthritis, Gouty ; Biopsy ; Carcinoma, Acinar Cell ; Cellulitis ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic Errors ; Fever ; Foot ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; Pancreatic Neoplasms ; Pancreatitis ; Panniculitis ; Skin ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed

This correction is being published to correct the author's affiliation and the corresponding author information.