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: Evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) for guidance during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is limited. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of ICE versus transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for guiding TAVR. Methods: This prospective cohort study included patients who underwent TAVR from August 18, 2015, to June 31, 2021. Eligible patients were stratified by echocardiographic modality (ICE or TEE) and anesthesia mode (monitored anesthesia care [MAC] or general anesthesia [GA]). Primary outcome was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for cardiovascular cause, or stroke, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) definition. Propensity score matching was performed, and study outcomes were analyzed for the matched cohorts. Results: Of the 359 eligible patients, 120 patients were matched for the ICE-MAC and TEEGA groups, respectively. The incidence of primary outcome was similar between matched groups (18.3% vs. 20.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53– 1.68; p=0.843). ICE-MAC and TEE-GA also had similar incidences of moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (4.2% vs. 5.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.23– 2.82; p=0.758), new permanent pacemaker implantation, and VARC-3 types 2–4 bleeding. Conclusions ICE was comparable to TEE for guidance during TAVR for the composite clinical efficacy outcome, with similar incidences of moderate-to-severe PVR, new permanent pacemaker implantation, and major bleeding. These results suggest that ICE could be a safe and effective alternative echocardiographic modality to TEE for guiding TAVR.

Background: Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by tumors in multiple endocrine organs, caused by variants in the MEN1 gene. This study analyzed the clinical and genetic features of MEN1 in a Korean cohort, identifying prevalent manifestations and genetic variants, including novel variants. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 117 MEN1 patients treated at three tertiary centers in Korea between January 2012 and September 2022. Patient demographics, tumor manifestations, outcomes, and MEN1 genetic testing results were collected. Variants were classified using American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and French Oncogenetics Network of Neuroendocrine Tumors propositions (TENGEN) guidelines. Results: A total of 117 patients were enrolled, including 55 familial cases, with a mean age at diagnosis of 37.4±15.3 years. Primary hyperparathyroidism was identified as the most common presentation (84.6%). The prevalence of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) was 77.8% (n=91) and 56.4% (n=66), respectively. Genetic testing revealed 61 distinct MEN1 variants in 101 patients, with 18 being novel. Four variants were reclassified according to the TENGEN guidelines. Patients with truncating variants (n=72) exhibited a higher prevalence of PitNETs compared to those with non-truncating variants (n=25) (59.7% vs. 36.0%, P=0.040). Conclusion The association between truncating variants and an increased prevalence of PitNETs in MEN1 underscores the importance of genetic characterization in guiding the clinical management of this disease. Our study sheds light on the clinical and genetic characteristics of MEN1 among the Korean population.

BACKGROUND: Current polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DESs) have fundamental issues about inflammation and delayed re-endothelializaton of the vessel wall. Substance-P (SP), which plays an important role in inflammation and endothelial cells, has not yet been applied to coronary stents. Therefore, this study compares poly lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA)-based everolimus-eluting stents (PLGA-EESs) versus 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC)-based SP-eluting stents (MPC-SPs) in in-vitro and in-vivo models. METHODS: The morphology of the stent surface and peptide/drug release kinetics from stents were evaluated. The invitro proliferative effect of SP released from MPC-SP is evaluated using human umbilical vein endothelial cell. Finally, the safety and efficacy of the stent are evaluated after inserting it into a pig’s coronary artery. RESULTS: Similar to PLGA-EES, MPC-SP had a uniform surface morphology with very thin coating layer thickness (2.074 lm). MPC-SP showed sustained drug release of SP for over 2 weeks. Endothelial cell proliferation was significantly increased in groups treated with SP (n = 3) compared with the control (n = 3) and those with everolimus (n = 3) (SP:118.9 ± 7.61% vs. everolimus: 64.3 ± 12.37% vs. the control: 100 ± 6.64%, p < 0.05). In the animal study, the percent stenosis was higher in MPC-SP group (n = 7) compared to PLGA-EES group (n = 7) (MPC-SP: 28.6 ± 10.7% vs. PLGAEES: 16.7 ± 6.3%, p < 0.05). MPC-SP group showed, however, lower inflammation (MPC-SP: 0.3 ± 0.26 vs. PLGAEES: 1.2 ± 0.48, p < 0.05) and fibrin deposition (MPC-SP: 1.0 ± 0.73 vs. PLGA-EES: 1.5 ± 0.59, p < 0.05) around the stent strut. MPC-SP showed more increased expression of cluster of differentiation 31, suggesting enhanced reendothelialization. CONCLUSION Compared to PLGA-EES, MPC-SP demonstrated more decreased inflammation of the vascular wall and enhanced re-endothelialization and stent coverage. Hence, MPC-SP has the potential therapeutic benefits for the treatment of coronary artery disease by solving limitations of currently available DESs.