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: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

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.

Background and Objectives: The K-ELUVIA study aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of Eluvia™, a polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stent, for femoropopliteal artery disease using data from a prospective Korean multicenter registry. Methods: A total of 105 patients with femoropopliteal artery disease who received endovascular treatment (EVT) with Eluvia™ stents at 7 Korean sites were enrolled in a prospective cohort and followed for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the 2-year clinical patency. The secondary endpoint was 2-year freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results: Mean patient age was 68.2±10.4 years, and most patients (82.7%) were male. Mean lesion length was 168.3±117.6 mm. Chronic total occlusion was found in 57.7% of patients.Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II) type C or D lesions were present in 46.1% of patients. Procedural success was achieved in 99.0% of patients. The clinical patency rate was 84.4% at 1 year after EVT and 76.3% at 2 years post-EVT. The freedom from TLR rate was 89.1% at 1 year after EVT and 79.1% at 2 years post-EVT. Chronic total occlusion (hazard ratio [HR], 3.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08–11.67; p=0.039) and smaller mean stent diameter (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16– 0.98; p=0.044) were identified as independent predictors of loss of clinical patency at 2 years. Conclusions The K-ELUVIA study demonstrated favorable 2-year clinical effectiveness and safety outcomes of Eluvia stent for femoropopliteal artery lesions in real-world practice.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

Purpose: The use of two adjacent radiation beams to treat a lesion that is larger than the maximum field of a machine may lead to higher or lower dose distribution at the junction than expected. Therefore, evaluation of the junction dose is crucial for radiotherapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can effectively protect surrounding normal tissues by implementing a complex dose distribution; therefore, two adjacent VMAT fields can effectively treat large lesions. However, VMAT can lead to significant errors in the junction dose between fields if setup errors occur due to its highly complex dose distributions. Methods: In this study, setup errors of ±1, ±3, and ±5 mm were assumed during radiotherapy for treating large lesions in the lower abdomen, and their effects on the treatment dose distribution and target coverage were analyzed using gamma pass rate (GP) and homogeneity index (HI). All studies were performed using a computational simulation method based on our radiation treatment planning software. Results: Consequently, when the setup error was more than ±3 mm, most GP values using a 3%/3-mm criterion decreased by <90%. GP was independent of the direction of the field gap (FG), whereas HI values were relatively more affected by negative values for FG. Conclusions Therefore, the size and direction of setup errors should be carefully managed when performing dual-isocentric VMATs for large targets.

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.