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: There are inconsistent reports regarding the association between general anesthesia and adverse neurodevelopmental and behavioral disorders in children. Methods: This nationwide administrative cohort study included children born in Korea between 2008 and 2009, and followed until December 31, 2017. The cohort included 93,717 participants who received general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation (ETI) who were matched to unexposed subjects in a 1:1 ratio. General anesthesia was defined by National Health Insurance Service treatment codes with intratracheal anesthesia, and the index date was the first event of general anesthesia. The primary outcome was attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), which was defined as at least a principal diagnosis of 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases code F90.X after the age of 72 months.Neurodevelopment, which was assessed using a developmental screening test (Korean-Ages and Stages Questionnaire [K-ASQ]), was a secondary outcome. The K-ASQ is performed annually from 1 to 6 years of age and consists of 5 domains. The association between general anesthesia and ADHD was estimated using a Cox hazard model, and its association with neurodevelopment was estimated using a generalized estimation equation, with control for multiple risk factors beyond 1 year after the index date. Results: The median age at the index date was 3.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7–5.8) years, and there were 57,625 (61.5%) men. During a mean follow-up period of 5 years, the incidence rate of ADHD was 42.6 and 27.7 per 10,000 person-years (PY) in the exposed and unexposed groups, respectively (absolute rate difference 14.9 [95% CI, 12.5–17.3] per 10,000 PY). Compared to the unexposed group, the exposed group had an increased risk of ADHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.30–1.52]). In addition, a longer duration of anesthesia with ETI and more general anesthesia procedures with ETI were associated with greater risk of ADHD. General anesthesia with ETI was also associated with poorer results in the K-ASQ. Conclusion Administration of general anesthesia with ETI to children is associated with an increased risk of ADHD and poor results in a neurodevelopmental screening test.

Background: Elderly patients with hip fractures frequently receive perioperative transfusions, which are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a patient blood management (PBM) program on the appropriateness of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and clinical outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. Methods: In 2018, the revised PBM program was implemented at the Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Elderly patients aged ≥ 65 years who underwent hip fracture surgery from 2017 to 2020 were evaluated. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were analyzed according to the timing of PBM implementation (pre-PBM, early-PBM, and late-PBM). Multiveriate regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk factors of the adverse outcomes, such as in-hospital mortality or 30-day readmission. Results: A total of 884 elderly patients were included in this study. The proportion of patients who received perioperative RBC transfusions decreased significantly (43.5%, 40.1%, and 33.2% for pre-PBM, early-PBM, and late-PBM, respectively; P = 0.013). However, the appropriateness of RBC transfusion significantly increased (54.0%, 60.1%, and 94.7%, respectively; P < 0.001). The duration of in-hospital stay and 30-day readmission rates significantly decreased. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that RBC transfusion (odds ratio, 1.815; 95% confidence interval, 1.137–2.899; P = 0.013) was significantly associated with adverse outcomes. Conclusion Implementing the PBM program increased the appropriateness of RBC transfusion without compromising transfusion quality and clinical outcomes. Therefore, adopting the PBM program may improve the clinical management of elderly patients following hip fracture surgery.

We aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for treating axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) in Korea. The development committee was constructed, key clinical questions were determined, and the evidence was searched through online databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, KoreaMed, and KMbase. Systematic literature reviews were conducted, quality of evidence was determined, and draft recommendations were formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. Recommendations that reached 80% consensus among a voting panel were finalized. Three principles and 21 recommendations were determined. Recommendations 1 and 2 pertain to treatment strategies, regular disease status assessment, and rheumatologist-steered multidisciplinary management. Recommendations 3 and 4 strongly recommend patient education, exercise, and smoking cessation. Recommendations 5~12 address pharmacological treatment of active disease using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids, sulfasalazine, biologics, and Janus kinase inhibitors.Recommendations 13~16 address treatment in stable disease. We suggest against spa and acupuncture as therapies (Recommendation 17). Recommendations 18 and 19 pertain to total hip arthroplasty and spinal surgery. Monitoring of comorbidities and drug toxicities are recommended (Recommendations 20 and 21). Recommendations for axSpA treatment in a Korean context were developed based on comprehensive clinical questions and evidence. These are intended to guide best practice in the treatment of axSpA.