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.

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National EvidenceBased Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.