Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Background and Objectives: Ultimaster™, a third-generation sirolimus-eluting stent using biodegradable polymer, has been introduced to overcome long term adverse vascular events, such as restenosis or stent thrombosis. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes of Ultimaster™ stents in Korean patients with coronary artery disease. Methods: This study is a multicenter, prospective, observational registry across 12 hospitals. To reflect real-world clinical evidence, non-selective subtypes of patients and lesions were included in this study. The study end point was target lesion failure (TLF) (the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization [TLR]) at 12-month clinical follow up. Results: A total of 576 patients were enrolled between November 2016 and May 2021. Most of the patients were male (76.5%), with a mean age of 66.0±11.2 years. Among the included patients, 40.1% had diabetes mellitus (DM) and 67.9% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS).At 12 months, the incidence of TLF was 4.1%. The incidence of cardiac death was 1.5%, MI was 1.0%, TLR was 2.7%, and stent thrombosis was 0.6%. In subgroup analysis based on the presence of ACS, DM, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or bifurcation, there were no major differences in the incidence of the primary endpoint. Conclusions The present registry shows that Ultimaster™ stent is safe and effective for routine real-world clinical practice in non-selective Korean patients, having a low rate of adverse events at least up to 12 months.

Objective: Geriatric patients requiring gynecological surgery is increasing worldwide. However, older patients are at higher risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality, particularly cardiopulmonary complications. Laparoscopic surgery is widely used as a minimally invasive method for reducing postoperative morbidities. We compared the outcomes of open and laparoscopic gynecologic surgeries in patients older than 55 years. Methods: We included patients aged >55 years who underwent gynecological surgery at a single tertiary center between 2010 and 2020, excluding vaginal or ovarian cancer surgeries were excluded. Surgical outcomes were compared between the open surgery and laparoscopic groups, with age cutoff was set at 65 years for optimal discriminative power. We performed linear or logistic regression analyses to compare the surgical outcomes according to age and operation type. Results: Among 2,983 patients, 28.6% underwent open surgery and 71.4% underwent laparoscopic surgery. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were better than those of open surgery in all groups. In both the open and laparoscopic surgery groups, the older patients showed worse overall surgical outcomes. However, age-related differences in perioperative outcomes were less severe in the laparoscopic group. In the linear regression analysis, the differences in estimated blood loss, transfusion, and hospital stay between the age groups were smaller in the laparoscopy group. Similar results were observed in cancer-only and benign-only cohorts. Conclusion Although the surgical outcomes were worse in the older patients, the difference between age groups was smaller for laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery offers more advantages and safety in patients aged >65 years.