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 and Objectives: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly recommended in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), participation in CR is low mainly due to access barriers. Home-based CR (HBCR) has been recommended to overcome access barriers.Exercise is a core component of CR and should be developed and implemented based on individual characteristics. We aimed to assess physical activity behaviors, exercise preferences, and exercise barriers to understand physical activity characteristics of CVD patients. Methods: Participants were patients between the ages 19 to 75 years with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or myocardial infarction (MI). They completed a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary hospital's outpatient clinic from April to June 2021. Survey data included physical activity levels, patterns, preference, and barriers of exercise. Results: Participants (n=189; 143 males, 46 females, 62.1±12.0 years) were diagnosed as either HFrEF (n=160, 84.7%) or a history of MI (n=97, 51.3%). Only 26.5% of patients engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise for more than 150 minutes per week. Participants preferred exercising alone or with families. Walking (65.6%) and resistance exercises (35.4%) were favored, with outdoor (37%) and home-based (30.2%) settings preferred over fitness centers (10.6%) and hospitals (0.5%). Barriers to exercise included fatigue (34.4%), poor health perception (31.7%), and low fitness levels (30.7%). Conclusions The results of this study can be used to develop tailored HBCR programs that consider individual preferences and address specific barriers, facilitating adequate physical activity engagement.

Background/Aims: H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been used to treat gastritis by inhibiting gastric acid. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are more potent acid suppressants than H2RA.However, the efficacy and safety of low-dose PPI for treating gastritis remain unclear. The aim was to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose PPI for treating gastritis. Methods: A double-blind, noninferiority, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial randomly assigned 476 patients with endoscopic erosive gastritis to a group using esomeprazole 10 mg (DW1903) daily and a group using famotidine 20 mg (DW1903R1) daily for 2 weeks. The full-analysis set included 319 patients (DW1903, n=159; DW1903R1, n=160) and the per-protocol set included 298 patients (DW1903, n=147; DW1903R1, n=151). The primary endpoint (erosion improvement rate) and secondary endpoint (erosion and edema cure rates, improvement rates of hemorrhage, erythema, and symptoms) were assessed after the treatment. Adverse events were compared. Results: According to the full-analysis set, the erosion improvement rates in the DW1903 and DW1903R1 groups were 59.8% and 58.8%, respectively. According to the per-protocol analysis, the erosion improvement rates in the DW1903 and DW1903R1 groups were 61.9% and 59.6%, respectively. Secondary endpoints were not significantly different between two groups except that the hemorrhagic improvement rate was higher in DW1903 with statistical tendency. The number of adverse events were not statistically different. Conclusions DW1903 of a low-dose PPI was not inferior to DW1903R1 of H2RA. Thus, lowdose PPI can be a novel option for treating gastritis (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05163756).

Background and Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent sleep disorder characterized by recurrent upper airway obstruction, leading to disrupted sleep and various health complications. Positional OSA (POSA) refers to patients whose OSA severity is significantly influenced by body position, especially when lying supine. This study aimed to evaluate the polysomnographic characteristics of POSA and non-positional OSA (non-POSA) and to assess their clinical implications. Methods: This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with OSA who underwent type 1 polysomnography. Patients were categorized into POSA and non-POSA groups based on whether their apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in the supine position was at least twice as high as that in the lateral position. We collected and analyzed clinical and polysomnographic parameters, including AHI, oxygen desaturation index, arousal index, nadir peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and sleep position proportions. These were compared across different OSA severity levels—mild, moderate, and severe—to assess differences between the POSA and non-POSA groups. Results: In total, 500 patients with OSA were analyzed, of whom 63.4% were classified as having POSA. Patients with POSA exhibited milder disease severity than those without, with an average AHI of 23.3±15.3/h versus 43.9±27.9/h, respectively, and a higher nadir SpO2 of 82.8%±6.6% versus 77.1%±9.8%. POSA was more common in patients with mild OSA (76.5%) and moderate OSA (72.8%), while severe OSA cases were predominantly non-POSA (POSA was 47.4%). Moreover, patients with POSA spent significantly more sleep time in the lateral position (43.8%±22.7%) than non-POSA patients (27.2%±28.2%). Conclusion Patients with POSA generally exhibited milder disease and more favorable polysomnographic profiles than non-POSA patients. POSA is prevalent in mild-to-moderate OSA, and identifying it via polysomnography may inform tailored treatment strategies.

Background and Objectives: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly recommended in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), participation in CR is low mainly due to access barriers. Home-based CR (HBCR) has been recommended to overcome access barriers.Exercise is a core component of CR and should be developed and implemented based on individual characteristics. We aimed to assess physical activity behaviors, exercise preferences, and exercise barriers to understand physical activity characteristics of CVD patients. Methods: Participants were patients between the ages 19 to 75 years with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or myocardial infarction (MI). They completed a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary hospital's outpatient clinic from April to June 2021. Survey data included physical activity levels, patterns, preference, and barriers of exercise. Results: Participants (n=189; 143 males, 46 females, 62.1±12.0 years) were diagnosed as either HFrEF (n=160, 84.7%) or a history of MI (n=97, 51.3%). Only 26.5% of patients engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise for more than 150 minutes per week. Participants preferred exercising alone or with families. Walking (65.6%) and resistance exercises (35.4%) were favored, with outdoor (37%) and home-based (30.2%) settings preferred over fitness centers (10.6%) and hospitals (0.5%). Barriers to exercise included fatigue (34.4%), poor health perception (31.7%), and low fitness levels (30.7%). Conclusions The results of this study can be used to develop tailored HBCR programs that consider individual preferences and address specific barriers, facilitating adequate physical activity engagement.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a joint disorder caused by wear and tear of the cartilage that cushions the joints. It is a progressive condition that can cause significant pain and disability. Currently, there is no cure for OA, though there are treatments available to manage symptoms and slow the progression of the disease. A chondral defect is a common and devastating lesion that is challenging to treat due to its avascular and aneural nature. However, there are conventional therapies available, ranging from microfracture to cell-based therapy. Anyhow, its efficiency in cartilage defects is limited due to unclear cell viability. Exosomes have emerged as a potent therapeutic tool for chondral defects because they are a complicated complex containing cargo of proteins, DNA, and RNA as well as the ability to target cells due to their phospholipidic composition and the altering exosomal contents that boost regeneration potential. Exosomes are used in a variety of applications, including tissue healing and anti-inflammatory therapy. As in recent years, biomaterialsbased bio fabrication has gained popularity among the many printable polymer-based hydrogels, tissue-specific decellularized extracellular matrix might boost the effects rather than an extracellular matrix imitating environment, a short note has been discussed. Exosomes are believed to be the greatest alternative option for current cell-based therapy, and future progress in exosome-based therapy could have a greater influence in the field of orthopaedics. The review focuses extensively on the insights of exosome use and scientific breakthroughs centered OA.

Background and Objectives: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly recommended in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), participation in CR is low mainly due to access barriers. Home-based CR (HBCR) has been recommended to overcome access barriers.Exercise is a core component of CR and should be developed and implemented based on individual characteristics. We aimed to assess physical activity behaviors, exercise preferences, and exercise barriers to understand physical activity characteristics of CVD patients. Methods: Participants were patients between the ages 19 to 75 years with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or myocardial infarction (MI). They completed a cross-sectional survey at a tertiary hospital's outpatient clinic from April to June 2021. Survey data included physical activity levels, patterns, preference, and barriers of exercise. Results: Participants (n=189; 143 males, 46 females, 62.1±12.0 years) were diagnosed as either HFrEF (n=160, 84.7%) or a history of MI (n=97, 51.3%). Only 26.5% of patients engaged in moderate to vigorous exercise for more than 150 minutes per week. Participants preferred exercising alone or with families. Walking (65.6%) and resistance exercises (35.4%) were favored, with outdoor (37%) and home-based (30.2%) settings preferred over fitness centers (10.6%) and hospitals (0.5%). Barriers to exercise included fatigue (34.4%), poor health perception (31.7%), and low fitness levels (30.7%). Conclusions The results of this study can be used to develop tailored HBCR programs that consider individual preferences and address specific barriers, facilitating adequate physical activity engagement.