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.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.

Purpose: The incidence and prognostic implications of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are controversial, especially for Korean patients. Furthermore, the pattern of antithrombotic therapy for these patients is unknown. The present study sought to identify the impact of AF on Korean patients undergoing TAVI and demonstrate the status of antithrombotic therapy for these patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 660 patients who underwent TAVI for severe AS were recruited from the nationwide K-TAVI registry in Korea. The enrolled patients were stratified into sinus rhythm (SR) and AF groups. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 1-year. Results: AF was recorded in 135 patients [pre-existing AF 108 (16.4%) and new-onset AF 27 (4.1%)]. The rate of all-cause death at 1 year was significantly higher in patients with AF than in those with SR [16.2% vs. 6.4%, adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 2.207, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.182–4.120, p=0.013], regardless of the onset timing of AF. The rate of new pacemaker insertion at 1 year was also significantly higher in patients with AF than in those with SR (14.0% vs. 5.5%, adjusted HR: 3.137, 95%CI: 1.621–6.071, p=0.001).Among AF patients, substantial number of patients received the combination of multiple antithrombotic agents (77.8%), and the most common combination was that of aspirin and clopidogrel (38.1%). Conclusion AF was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality and new pacemaker insertion in Korean patients undergoing TAVI.

Background: The risk of device thrombosis and device-oriented clinical outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was reported to be significantly higher than with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, optimal device implantation may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving BVS. The current study evaluated mid-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS with meticulous device optimization under intravascular imaging guidance. Methods: The SMART-REWARD and PERSPECTIVE-PCI registries in Korea prospectively enrolled 390 patients with BVS and 675 patients with DES, respectively. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years and the secondary major endpoint was patientoriented composite outcome (POCO) at 2 years. Results: Patient-level pooled analysis evaluated 1,003 patients (377 patients with BVS and 626 patients with DES). Mean scaffold diameter per lesion was 3.24 ± 0.30 mm in BVS group.Most BVSs were implanted with pre-dilatation (90.9%), intravascular imaging guidance (74.9%), and post-dilatation (73.1%) at proximal to mid segment (81.9%) in target vessel.Patients treated with BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF (2.9% vs. 3.7%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.283, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487–3.378, P = 0.615) and 2-year POCO (4.5% vs. 5.9%, adjusted HR, 1.413, 95% CI, 0.663–3.012,P = 0.370) than those with DES. The rate of 2-year definite or probable device thrombosis (0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.424) was also similar. The sensitivity analyses consistently showed comparable risk of TVF and POCO between the 2 groups. Conclusion With meticulous device optimization under imaging guidance and avoidance of implantation in small vessels, BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF and device thrombosis with DES.