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/Aims: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease. This study aimed to evaluate differences in carotid atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease severity according to MASLD subtypes using general health screening data from multiple tertiary hospitals. Methods: A total of 3,466 subjects who underwent health check-ups including abdominal ultrasound, carotid ultrasound, and cardiac computed tomography were analyzed. Participants were categorized into non-SLD, MASLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated alcohol-relat-ed liver disease (MetALD), and alcohol-related liver disease. Carotid plaque prevalence and coronary artery stenosis severity were compared across groups and stratified by fibrosis stage using the Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4). Results: Patients with MASLD and MetALD showed a significantly higher prevalence of carotid plaques compared with the non-SLD group. The severity of coronary artery stenosis was also greater in MASLD and MetALD, particularly among those with advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 ≥2.67). Conclusions MASLD and MetALD are associated with increased burden of systemic atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease, especially in patients with advanced fibrosis. These findings highlight the importance of cardiovascular risk assessment in individuals with MASLD and its subtypes.

Purpose: The diagnosis and management of cardiovascular diseases are important for pilots, as well as the assessment of workload. Heart rate variability (HRV) can be evaluated from electrocardiography (ECG) signals during flight phases to assess the activation of the autonomic nervous system. Methods: In this study, continuous ECG activity was recorded of one pilot who flied as a pilot flying during a 4-hour long round trip using wearable ECG machine and was analyzed with MATLAB (R2020b ver. 9.9, The Mathworks Inc.). Total flight was divided into five phases: preflight, take off, cruise, landing, and postflight. Results: Mean heart rate (HR) was lowest in the postflight phase (76 bpm), and highest in the landing phase (86 bpm). Landing phase showed the highest values in standard deviation of NN interval (59.3 ms), triangular index (11.7), and triangular interpolation of NN interval (195 ms), while the postflight phase had highest root mean square of successive difference (20.5 ms) and proportion of successive RR interval (3.4 ms). As for frequency-domain metrics, the landing phase had the highest lowfrequency/high-frequency ratio of 5.33. Among the non-linear HRV measures, the landing phase presented the lowest SD1/SD2 ratio (0.15). Conclusion We observed the relative increase of mean HR and change of HRV in the landing phase, indicating elevated sympathetic nervous tone. Further studies should be considered to evaluate specific changes of ECG signals in flight phases and confirm the clinical use of the MATLAB signal analysis tools.

Background: s/Aims: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), such as totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (TLPD) or robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD), is increasingly performed worldwide. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of TLPD and RAPD, and compare the oncologic outcomes between MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for malignant disease. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at two hospitals that followed similar oncological surgical principles, including the extent of resection. RAPD was performed at Seoul National University Hospital, and TLPD at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to compare oncologic outcomes between MIPD and OPD. Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 332 RAPD and 178 TLPD were performed. The rates of Clavian–Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (19.3% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.816), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (9.9% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.647), and open conversions (6.6% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.163) were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time (341 minutes vs. 414 minutes, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in the RAPD group (11 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.034). After PSM, the 5-year overall survival rate was comparable between MIPD and OPD for overall malignant disease (58.4% vs. 55.5%, p = 0.180). Conclusions Both RAPD and TLPD are safe and feasible, and MIPD has clinical outcomes that are comparable to those of OPD. Although RAPD exhibits some advantages, its perioperative outcomes are similar to those associated with TLPD. A surgical method may be selected based on the convenience of surgical movements, medical costs, and operator experience.