Background: To analyze the outcomes of clipping and coiling for ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIAs) based on data from the National Health Insurance Service in South Korea, with a focus on variations according to region and hospital size. Methods: This study analyzed the one-year mortality rates for patients with RIAs who underwent clipping or coiling in 2018. Coiling was further categorized into non-stent assisted coiling (NSAC) and stent assisted coiling (SAC). Hospitals were classified as tertiary referral general hospitals (TRGHs), general hospitals (GHs), or semi-general hospitals (sGHs) based on size. South Korea’s administrative districts were divided into 15 regions for analysis. Results: In 2018, there were 2,194 (33.1%) clipping procedures (TRGH, 985; GH, 827; sGH, 382) and 4,431 (66.9%) coiling procedures (TRGH, 1,642; GH, 2076; sGH, 713) performed for RIAs treatment. Among hospitals performing more than 20 treatments, the one-year mortality rates following clipping or coiling were 11.2% and 16.0%, respectively, with no significant difference observed. However, there was a significant difference in one-year mortality between NSAC and SAC (14.3% vs. 19.5%, P = 0.034), with clipping also showing significantly lower mortality compared to SAC (P = 0.019). No significant differences in other treatment modalities were observed according to hospital size, but clipping at TRGHs had significantly lower mortality than at GHs (P = 0.042). While no significant correlation was found between the number of treatments and outcomes at GHs, at TRGHs, a higher volume of clipping procedures was significantly associated with lower total mortality (P = 0.023) and mortality after clipping (P = 0.022). Conclusion Using Korea NHIS data, mortality rates for RIAs showed no significant variation by hospital size due to coiling’s prevalence. However, differences in clipping outcomes by hospital size and volume in TRGH highlight the need for national efforts to improve clipping skills and standardization. Additionally, the higher mortality rate with SAC emphasizes the importance of precise indications for its application.

Background and Objectives: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-STsegment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Methods: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. Results: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48– 0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48–2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). Conclusions Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.

Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of treatment with drug-coated balloon (DCB) in a large real-world population. Methods: Patients treated with DCBs were included in a multicenter observational registry that enrolled patients from 18 hospitals in Korea between January 2009 and December 2017. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 12 months. Results: The study included 2,509 patients with 2,666 DCB-treated coronary artery lesions (1,688 [63.3%] with in-stent restenosis [ISR] lesions vs. 978 [36.7%] with de novo lesions).The mean age with standard deviation was 65.7±11.3 years; 65.7% of the patients were men.At 12 months, the primary outcome, TLF, occurred in 179 (6.7%), 151 (8.9%), 28 (2.9%) patients among the total, ISR, and de novo lesion populations, respectively. A history of hypertension, diabetes, acute coronary syndrome, previous coronary artery bypass graft, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, B2C lesion and ISR lesion were independent predictors of 12 months TLF in the overall study population. Conclusions This large multicenter DCB registry study revealed the favorable clinical outcome of DCB treatment in real-world practice in patient with ISR lesion as well as small de novo coronary lesion.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.

Background/Aims: To examine the prevalence and clinical characteristics of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension among ambulatory hypertensive patients. Methods: We enrolled adult ambulatory hypertensive patients at 13 well-qualified general hospitals in Korea from January to June 2012. Apparent resistant hypertension was defined as an elevated blood pressure > 140/90 mmHg with the use of three antihypertensive agents, including diuretics, or ≥ 4 antihypertensives, regardless of the blood pressure. Controlled hypertension was defined as a blood pressure within the target using three antihypertensives, including diuretics. Results: Among 16,915 hypertensive patients, 1,172 (6.9%) had controlled hypertension, and 1,514 (8.9%) had apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. Patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension had an earlier onset of hypertension (56.8 years vs. 58.8 years, p = 0.007) and higher body mass index (26.3 kg/m2 vs. 24.9 kg/m2, p < 0.001) than those with controlled hypertension. Drug compliance did not differ between groups. In the multivariable analysis, earlier onset of hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 0.99; p < 0.001) and the presence of comorbidities (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.35; p < 0.001), such as diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, were independent predictors. Among the patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension, only 5.2% were receiving ≥ 2 antihypertensives at maximally tolerated doses. Conclusions Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension prevalence is 8.9% among ambulatory hypertensive patients in Korea. An earlier onset of hypertension and the presence of comorbidities are independent predictors. Optimization of medical treatment may reduce the rate of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension.

Background/Aims: To examine the prevalence and clinical characteristics of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension among ambulatory hypertensive patients. Methods: We enrolled adult ambulatory hypertensive patients at 13 well-qualified general hospitals in Korea from January to June 2012. Apparent resistant hypertension was defined as an elevated blood pressure > 140/90 mmHg with the use of three antihypertensive agents, including diuretics, or ≥ 4 antihypertensives, regardless of the blood pressure. Controlled hypertension was defined as a blood pressure within the target using three antihypertensives, including diuretics. Results: Among 16,915 hypertensive patients, 1,172 (6.9%) had controlled hypertension, and 1,514 (8.9%) had apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. Patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension had an earlier onset of hypertension (56.8 years vs. 58.8 years, p = 0.007) and higher body mass index (26.3 kg/m2 vs. 24.9 kg/m2, p < 0.001) than those with controlled hypertension. Drug compliance did not differ between groups. In the multivariable analysis, earlier onset of hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 0.99; p < 0.001) and the presence of comorbidities (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.35; p < 0.001), such as diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, were independent predictors. Among the patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension, only 5.2% were receiving ≥ 2 antihypertensives at maximally tolerated doses. Conclusions Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension prevalence is 8.9% among ambulatory hypertensive patients in Korea. An earlier onset of hypertension and the presence of comorbidities are independent predictors. Optimization of medical treatment may reduce the rate of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although complete revascularization is known superior to incomplete revascularization in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCD), there are no definite instructions on the optimal timing of non-culprit lesions percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared 1-year clinical outcomes between 2 different complete multi-vessel revascularization strategies.METHODS: From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health, 606 patients with STEMI and MVCD who underwent complete revascularization were enrolled from November 2011 to December 2015. The patients were assigned to multi-vessel single-staged PCI (SS PCI) group (n=254) or multi-vessel multi-staged PCI (MS PCI) group (n=352). Propensity score matched 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.RESULTS: At one year, MS PCI showed a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidential interval [CI], 0.19–0.92; p=0.030) compared with SS PCI. In subgroup analysis, all-cause mortality increased in SS PCI with cardiogenic shock (HR, 4.60; 95% CI, 1.54–13.77; p=0.006), age ≥65 years (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.67–9.58, p=0.002), Killip class III/IV (HR, 7.32; 95% CI, 1.68–31.87; p=0.008), and creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min (HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.10–7.18; p=0.031). After propensity score-matching, MS PCI showed a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular event than SS PCI.CONCLUSIONS: SS PCI was associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with MS PCI. MS PCI for non-infarct-related artery could be a better option for patients with STEMI and MVCD, especially high-risk patients.
Arteries ; Coronary Artery Disease ; Coronary Vessels ; Creatinine ; Humans ; Korea ; Mortality ; Myocardial Infarction ; Myocardial Revascularization ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Propensity Score ; Shock, Cardiogenic

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although complete revascularization is known superior to incomplete revascularization in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCD), there are no definite instructions on the optimal timing of non-culprit lesions percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared 1-year clinical outcomes between 2 different complete multi-vessel revascularization strategies. METHODS: From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health, 606 patients with STEMI and MVCD who underwent complete revascularization were enrolled from November 2011 to December 2015. The patients were assigned to multi-vessel single-staged PCI (SS PCI) group (n=254) or multi-vessel multi-staged PCI (MS PCI) group (n=352). Propensity score matched 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: At one year, MS PCI showed a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidential interval [CI], 0.19–0.92; p=0.030) compared with SS PCI. In subgroup analysis, all-cause mortality increased in SS PCI with cardiogenic shock (HR, 4.60; 95% CI, 1.54–13.77; p=0.006), age ≥65 years (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.67–9.58, p=0.002), Killip class III/IV (HR, 7.32; 95% CI, 1.68–31.87; p=0.008), and creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min (HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.10–7.18; p=0.031). After propensity score-matching, MS PCI showed a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular event than SS PCI. CONCLUSIONS SS PCI was associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with MS PCI. MS PCI for non-infarct-related artery could be a better option for patients with STEMI and MVCD, especially high-risk patients.