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.

Objective To evaluate the effect of end-stage renal disease(ESRD)hemodialysis(HD)on the prognosis of elderly patients undergoing drug-eluting stent(DES)implantation.Methods A retrospective trial was conducted on 4219 consecutive patients(＞60 years old)undergoing DES treatment at Guro Hospital of Korea University from March 2003 to July 2021,and those with GFR ≥ 1 5 ml/(min·1.73 m2)but not on dialysis were assigned into the non-ESRD group(n=4102)and the others on dialysis into the ESRD group(n=117).Based on their baseline data,a propensity score matching(PSM)model was established,including 183 cases of the non-ESRD group and 99 cases of the ESRD group.The patients were followed up for 1,3 and 5 years,and the incidences of MACE and other endpoint events were recorded during the period.Kaplan-Meier sur-vival curve was plotted,and PSM and multivariate Cox regression models were employed to verify the endpoint events.Results Before PSM,the elderly ESRD group had obviously larger propor-tions of hypertension,diabetes,peripheral vascular disease and other diagnoses than the elderly non-ESRD group(P＜0.01).Univariate Cox regression analysis showed that ESRD was a risk fac-tor for all-cause mortality in the elderly patients at 1,3 and 5 years after DES implantation(P＜0.05,P＜0.01);a risk factor for MACE at 3 and 5 years after implantation(HR=2.67,95％CI:1.73-4.10,P=0.000;HR=2.65,95％CI:1.79-3.90,P=0.000);and a risk factor for develo-ping TVR,TLR,NTVR and revascularization at 5 years after surgery(P＜0.05,P＜0.01).Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that the incidence of MACE in the elderly ESRD group was higher than that in the elderly non-ESRD group at 5-year follow-up(Plog rank=0.006).Conclusion ESRD significantly increases the risk of long-term MACE after DES implantation in elderly patients.

Background and Objectives: The popliteal artery is generally regarded as a “no-stent zone.”Limited data are available on the outcomes of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for popliteal artery disease. This study aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes among patients who received DCB treatment for atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. Methods: This prospective, multicenter registry study enrolled 100 patients from 7 Korean endovascular centers who underwent endovascular therapy using IN.PACT DCB (Medtronic) for symptomatic atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. The primary endpoint was 12-month clinical primary patency and the secondary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR)–free rate. Results: The mean age of the study cohort was 65.7±10.8 years, and 77% of enrolled patients were men. The mean lesion length was 93.7±53.7 mm, and total occlusions were present in 45% of patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined atherectomy was performed in 17% and provisional stenting was required in 11%. Out of the enrolled patients, 91 patients completed the 12-month follow-up. Clinical primary patency and TLR-free survival rates at 12 months were 76.0% and 87.2%, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified female and longer lesion length as the significant independent predictors of loss of patency. Conclusions DCB treatment yielded favorable 12-month clinical primary patency and TLRfree survival outcomes in patients with popliteal artery disease.