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.

Purpose: Despite the increasing use of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), its oncologic safety in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) needs to be comprehensively clarified in breast cancer management. The objective of the present study was to analyze the oncologic safety of IBR following NACT. Methods: In total, 587 patients with breast cancer who underwent a total mastectomy (TM) with IBR after NACT between 2008 and 2017 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The reviewed patients with IBR following skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) were matched 1:3 to patients who underwent TM alone after NACT. Matching variables included age, clinical T and N stages before NACT, response to NACT, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. Results: After propensity score matching, 95 patients who underwent IBR following SSM/ NSM after NACT (IBR group) and 228 patients who underwent TM alone after NACT (TM group) were selected. The median follow-up period was 73 (range, 5–181) months after matching. After matching, there were no significant differences between the two groups in 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (88.8% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.516), disease-free survival (67.3% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.099), distant metastasis-free survival (71.9% vs. 81.9%, p = 0.057), or overall survival (84.1% vs. 91.5, p = 0.061) rates. In multivariate analyses, conducting IBR was not associated with increased risks for locoregional recurrence, any recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall death. Conclusion Our findings suggest that IBR following SSM/NSM elicits comparable long-term oncologic outcomes to those of TM alone in the setting of NACT.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 152 patients with residual TNBC who underwent breast-conserving surgery after NAC between December 2008 and December 2017. Most patients (n = 133; 87.5%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) was administered at a total dose of 45–65 Gy in 15–30 fractions to the whole breast, with some patients also receiving RT to regional nodes. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and prognostic factors influencing survival were analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: During a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 9 to 179 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 68.0%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83.6%, 72.6%, and 78.7%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the cN stage, ypT stage, ypN stage, axillary operation type, and RT field were associated with DFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher ypT stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–3.82; p = 0.049) and ypN stage (HR = 4.7; 95% CI 1.57–14.24; p = 0.006) were associated with inferior DFS. Among clinically node-positive patients, those who received RT to the breast only had a 5-year DFS of 73.7%, whereas those who received RNI achieved a DFS of 59.6% (p = 0.164). There were no differences between the DFS and RNI. Conclusion In patients with residual TNBC, higher ypT and ypN stages were associated with poorer outcomes after NAC. RNI did not appear to improve DFS. More intensive treatments incorporating systemic therapy and RT should be considered for these patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 152 patients with residual TNBC who underwent breast-conserving surgery after NAC between December 2008 and December 2017. Most patients (n = 133; 87.5%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) was administered at a total dose of 45–65 Gy in 15–30 fractions to the whole breast, with some patients also receiving RT to regional nodes. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and prognostic factors influencing survival were analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: During a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 9 to 179 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 68.0%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83.6%, 72.6%, and 78.7%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the cN stage, ypT stage, ypN stage, axillary operation type, and RT field were associated with DFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher ypT stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–3.82; p = 0.049) and ypN stage (HR = 4.7; 95% CI 1.57–14.24; p = 0.006) were associated with inferior DFS. Among clinically node-positive patients, those who received RT to the breast only had a 5-year DFS of 73.7%, whereas those who received RNI achieved a DFS of 59.6% (p = 0.164). There were no differences between the DFS and RNI. Conclusion In patients with residual TNBC, higher ypT and ypN stages were associated with poorer outcomes after NAC. RNI did not appear to improve DFS. More intensive treatments incorporating systemic therapy and RT should be considered for these patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 152 patients with residual TNBC who underwent breast-conserving surgery after NAC between December 2008 and December 2017. Most patients (n = 133; 87.5%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) was administered at a total dose of 45–65 Gy in 15–30 fractions to the whole breast, with some patients also receiving RT to regional nodes. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and prognostic factors influencing survival were analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: During a median follow-up of 66 months (range, 9 to 179 months), the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 68.0%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were 83.6%, 72.6%, and 78.7%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the cN stage, ypT stage, ypN stage, axillary operation type, and RT field were associated with DFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher ypT stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–3.82; p = 0.049) and ypN stage (HR = 4.7; 95% CI 1.57–14.24; p = 0.006) were associated with inferior DFS. Among clinically node-positive patients, those who received RT to the breast only had a 5-year DFS of 73.7%, whereas those who received RNI achieved a DFS of 59.6% (p = 0.164). There were no differences between the DFS and RNI. Conclusion In patients with residual TNBC, higher ypT and ypN stages were associated with poorer outcomes after NAC. RNI did not appear to improve DFS. More intensive treatments incorporating systemic therapy and RT should be considered for these patients.

Objective: To assess whether performing exercises during hemodialysis reduces the risk of developing intradialytic hypotension and enhances exercise capacity in patients with chronic kidney disease. Methods: This study included patients aged ≥18 years undergoing hemodialysis. Participants performed exercises using a portable lower extremity ergometer during hemodialysis sessions for 3 weeks. Data regarding walking distance, knee strength, quality of life, fat-free mass, arterial pressure, blood pressure, heart rate, frequency of intradialytic hypotension, fatigue, and duration of hemodialysis were collected and analyzed. Results: Significant improvements in walking distance and knee strength were observed following the implementation of exercise training during hemodialysis. Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of intradialytic hypotension, a decreasing trend was noted. Other parameters such as quality of life and fatigue did not show significant changes. Conclusion Using a portable ergometer during hemodialysis improved exercise capacity and knee strength in patients with chronic kidney disease. There was a trend toward reduced intradialytic hypotension, suggesting potential cardiovascular benefits. Further research with larger sample sizes is needed to confirm these findings.

Background/Aims: This study compared the effectiveness and safety of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) in real-life clinical practice. Methods: The data from genotype 1 or 2 chronic hepatitis C patients treated with GLE/PIB or sofosbuvir + ribavirin or SOF/LDV in South Korea were collected retrospectively. The analysis included the treatment completion rate, sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12) test rate, treatment effectiveness, and adverse events. Results: Seven hundred and eighty-two patients with genotype 1 or 2 chronic hepatitis C who were treated with GLE/PIB (n=575) or SOF/LDV (n=207) were included in this retrospective study. The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics revealed significant statistical differences in age, genotype, ascites, liver cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma between the GLE/PIB and SOF/LDV groups. Twenty-two patients did not complete the treatment protocol. The treatment completion rate was high for both regimens without statistical significance (97.7% vs. 95.7%, p=0.08). The overall SVR12 of intention-to-treat analysis was 81.2% vs. 80.7% without statistical significance (p=0.87). The overall SVR12 of per protocol analysis was 98.7% vs. 100% without statistical significance (p=0.14). Six patients treated with GLE/PIB experienced treatment failure. They were all male, genotype 2, and showed a negative hepatitis C virus RNA level at the end of treatment. Two patients treated with GLE/PIB stopped medication because of fever and abdominal discomfort. Conclusions Both regimens had similar treatment completion rates, effectiveness, and safety profiles. Therefore, the SOF/LDV regimen can also be considered a viable DAA for the treatment of patients with genotype 1 or 2 chronic hepatitis C.