1.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
2.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
3.Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dementia: Recommendations for Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine
Yeshin KIM ; Dong Woo KANG ; Geon Ha KIM ; Ko Woon KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Seunghee NA ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Young Ho PARK ; Gihwan BYEON ; Jeewon SUH ; Joon Hyun SHIN ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Yoo Hyun UM ; Seong-il OH ; Sheng-Min WANG ; Bora YOON ; Sun Min LEE ; Juyoun LEE ; Jin San LEE ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Young Hee JUNG ; Juhee CHIN ; Hyemin JANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Yun Jeong HONG ; Hak Young RHEE ; Jae-Won JANG ;
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(1):1-23
Background:
and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia.
Methods:
Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Results:
Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects.
Conclusions
This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.
4.Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dementia: Recommendations for Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine
Yeshin KIM ; Dong Woo KANG ; Geon Ha KIM ; Ko Woon KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Seunghee NA ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Young Ho PARK ; Gihwan BYEON ; Jeewon SUH ; Joon Hyun SHIN ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Yoo Hyun UM ; Seong-il OH ; Sheng-Min WANG ; Bora YOON ; Sun Min LEE ; Juyoun LEE ; Jin San LEE ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Young Hee JUNG ; Juhee CHIN ; Hyemin JANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Yun Jeong HONG ; Hak Young RHEE ; Jae-Won JANG ;
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(1):1-23
Background:
and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia.
Methods:
Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Results:
Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects.
Conclusions
This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.
5.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
6.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
7.Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dementia: Recommendations for Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine
Yeshin KIM ; Dong Woo KANG ; Geon Ha KIM ; Ko Woon KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Seunghee NA ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Young Ho PARK ; Gihwan BYEON ; Jeewon SUH ; Joon Hyun SHIN ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Yoo Hyun UM ; Seong-il OH ; Sheng-Min WANG ; Bora YOON ; Sun Min LEE ; Juyoun LEE ; Jin San LEE ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Young Hee JUNG ; Juhee CHIN ; Hyemin JANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Yun Jeong HONG ; Hak Young RHEE ; Jae-Won JANG ;
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(1):1-23
Background:
and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia.
Methods:
Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Results:
Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects.
Conclusions
This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.
8.Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dementia: Recommendations for Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine
Yeshin KIM ; Dong Woo KANG ; Geon Ha KIM ; Ko Woon KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Seunghee NA ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Young Ho PARK ; Gihwan BYEON ; Jeewon SUH ; Joon Hyun SHIN ; YongSoo SHIM ; YoungSoon YANG ; Yoo Hyun UM ; Seong-il OH ; Sheng-Min WANG ; Bora YOON ; Sun Min LEE ; Juyoun LEE ; Jin San LEE ; Jae-Sung LIM ; Young Hee JUNG ; Juhee CHIN ; Hyemin JANG ; Miyoung CHOI ; Yun Jeong HONG ; Hak Young RHEE ; Jae-Won JANG ;
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2025;24(1):1-23
Background:
and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia.
Methods:
Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Results:
Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects.
Conclusions
This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.
9.Korea-Registries to Overcome Dementia and Accelerate Dementia Research (K-ROAD): A Cohort for Dementia Research and Ethnic-Specific Insights
Hyemin JANG ; Daeun SHIN ; Yeshin KIM ; Ko Woon KIM ; Juyoun LEE ; Jun Pyo KIM ; Hee Jin KIM ; Soo Hyun CHO ; Si Eun KIM ; Duk. L. NA ; Sang Won SEO ; On behalf of the K-ROAD Study Groups
Dementia and Neurocognitive Disorders 2024;23(4):212-223
Background:
and Purpose: Dementia, particularly Alzheimer’s disease, is a significant global health concern, with early diagnosis and treatment development being critical goals. While numerous cohorts have advanced dementia research, there is a lack of comprehensive data on ethnic differences, particularly for the Korean population. The Korea-Registries to Overcome Dementia and Accelerate Dementia Research (K-ROAD) aims to establish a large-scale, hospital-based dementia cohort to address this gap, with a focus on understanding disease progression, developing early diagnostics, and supporting treatment advancements specific to the Korean population.
Methods:
K-ROAD comprises multiple prospective cohorts. Participants underwent clinical evaluations, neuroimaging, and biomarker analysis, with data collected on a range of clinical and genomic markers.
Results:
As of December 2023, K-ROAD has recruited over 5,800 participants, including individuals across the Alzheimer’s clinical syndrome, subcortical vascular cognitive impairment, and frontotemporal dementia spectra. Preliminary findings highlight significant ethnic differences in amyloid positivity, cognitive decline, and biomarker profiles, compared to Western cohorts.
Conclusions
The K-ROAD cohort offers a unique and critical resource for dementia research, providing insights into ethnic-specific disease characteristics and biomarker profiles. These findings will contribute to the development of personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to dementia, enhancing global understanding of the disease.
10.Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using SecondGeneration Drug-Eluting Stent
Jung-Hee LEE ; Young Jin YOUN ; Ho Sung JEON ; Jun-Won LEE ; Sung Gyun AHN ; Junghan YOON ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; Young Bin SONG ; Ki Hong CHOI ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Woo Jung CHUN ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Chang-Wook NAM ; Yun-Kyeong CHO ; Seung Hwan HAN ; Seung-Woon RHA ; In-Ho CHAE ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Jung Ho HEO ; Do-Sun LIM ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Myeong-Ki HONG ; Joon-Hyung DOH ; Kwang Soo CHA ; Doo-Il KIM ; Sang Yeub LEE ; Kiyuk CHANG ; Byung-Hee HWANG ; So-Yeon CHOI ; Myung Ho JEONG ; Hyun-Jong LEE
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2024;39(10):e111-
Background:
The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs).
Methods:
Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group).
Results:
Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639).
Conclusion
The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail