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.

Background: Cutaneous manifestations are frequently observed in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and affect the quality of life (QoL) of patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (HD). Even patients undergoing HD who frequently visit hospitals do not receive active dermatological care. The aims of this study were to assess the cutaneous manifestations of patients undergoing HD and investigate changes in their QoL before and after active treatment by dermatologists. Methods: A 12-week prospective study was conducted in two HD centers. Patients in one center received dermatological intervention, while patients in the other center received conservative management by a nephrologist. Patients scored their QoL using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Skindex-29 at the start of the study and 12 weeks later. Two matched groups were formed using propensity score matching.Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify associations between dermatological treatment and the improvement in QoL. Results: In total, 120 patients were included, of whom 65 and 55 were in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Approximately 93.8% of the patients had dermatological manifestations, with pallor and xerosis being the most common. Improvement in QoL, as assessed using the DLQI, was confirmed after 12 weeks in the overall population. However, active intervention by a dermatologist did not significantly improve QoL. Conclusion Patients treated with dermatological intervention by a dermatologist did not achieve greater improvements in QoL than control patients. Therefore, careful assessment of skin issues in patients with ESKD should be undertaken by nephrologists, and the best possible treatment should be administered.

Background: Cutaneous manifestations are frequently observed in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and affect the quality of life (QoL) of patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (HD). Even patients undergoing HD who frequently visit hospitals do not receive active dermatological care. The aims of this study were to assess the cutaneous manifestations of patients undergoing HD and investigate changes in their QoL before and after active treatment by dermatologists. Methods: A 12-week prospective study was conducted in two HD centers. Patients in one center received dermatological intervention, while patients in the other center received conservative management by a nephrologist. Patients scored their QoL using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Skindex-29 at the start of the study and 12 weeks later. Two matched groups were formed using propensity score matching.Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify associations between dermatological treatment and the improvement in QoL. Results: In total, 120 patients were included, of whom 65 and 55 were in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Approximately 93.8% of the patients had dermatological manifestations, with pallor and xerosis being the most common. Improvement in QoL, as assessed using the DLQI, was confirmed after 12 weeks in the overall population. However, active intervention by a dermatologist did not significantly improve QoL. Conclusion Patients treated with dermatological intervention by a dermatologist did not achieve greater improvements in QoL than control patients. Therefore, careful assessment of skin issues in patients with ESKD should be undertaken by nephrologists, and the best possible treatment should be administered.

Background: Cutaneous manifestations are frequently observed in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and affect the quality of life (QoL) of patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (HD). Even patients undergoing HD who frequently visit hospitals do not receive active dermatological care. The aims of this study were to assess the cutaneous manifestations of patients undergoing HD and investigate changes in their QoL before and after active treatment by dermatologists. Methods: A 12-week prospective study was conducted in two HD centers. Patients in one center received dermatological intervention, while patients in the other center received conservative management by a nephrologist. Patients scored their QoL using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Skindex-29 at the start of the study and 12 weeks later. Two matched groups were formed using propensity score matching.Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify associations between dermatological treatment and the improvement in QoL. Results: In total, 120 patients were included, of whom 65 and 55 were in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Approximately 93.8% of the patients had dermatological manifestations, with pallor and xerosis being the most common. Improvement in QoL, as assessed using the DLQI, was confirmed after 12 weeks in the overall population. However, active intervention by a dermatologist did not significantly improve QoL. Conclusion Patients treated with dermatological intervention by a dermatologist did not achieve greater improvements in QoL than control patients. Therefore, careful assessment of skin issues in patients with ESKD should be undertaken by nephrologists, and the best possible treatment should be administered.

Background: Cutaneous manifestations are frequently observed in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and affect the quality of life (QoL) of patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (HD). Even patients undergoing HD who frequently visit hospitals do not receive active dermatological care. The aims of this study were to assess the cutaneous manifestations of patients undergoing HD and investigate changes in their QoL before and after active treatment by dermatologists. Methods: A 12-week prospective study was conducted in two HD centers. Patients in one center received dermatological intervention, while patients in the other center received conservative management by a nephrologist. Patients scored their QoL using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Skindex-29 at the start of the study and 12 weeks later. Two matched groups were formed using propensity score matching.Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify associations between dermatological treatment and the improvement in QoL. Results: In total, 120 patients were included, of whom 65 and 55 were in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Approximately 93.8% of the patients had dermatological manifestations, with pallor and xerosis being the most common. Improvement in QoL, as assessed using the DLQI, was confirmed after 12 weeks in the overall population. However, active intervention by a dermatologist did not significantly improve QoL. Conclusion Patients treated with dermatological intervention by a dermatologist did not achieve greater improvements in QoL than control patients. Therefore, careful assessment of skin issues in patients with ESKD should be undertaken by nephrologists, and the best possible treatment should be administered.

Background: Coronary artery disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often exhibit reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the impact of LV dysfunction status in conjunction with platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes has not been previously investigated. Methods: From the multicenter PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term prognosis in DES-treated patients) consortium, the patients were classified as preserved-EF (PEF: LVEF ≥ 50%) and reduced-EF (REF: LVEF< 5 0%) group by echocardiography. Platelet reactivity was measured using VerifyNow P2Y 12 assay and high platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as PRU ≥ 252. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at 5 years after PCI. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3–5. Results: A total of 13,160 patients from PTRG-DES, 9,319 (79.6%) patients with the results of both PRU and LVEF were analyzed. The incidence of MACCE and major bleeding was higher in REF group as compared with PEF group (MACCEs: hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85–2.55; major bleeding: HR 1.78, P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.39–2.78).The highest rate of MACCEs was found in patients with REF and HPR, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (HR 3.14 in REF(+)/HPR(+) vs. PEF(+)/HPR(-) group,P <0.01, 95% CI 2.51–3.91). The frequency of major bleeding was not associated with the HPR in either group. Conclusion LV dysfunction was associated with an increased incidence of MACCEs and major bleeding in patients who underwent PCI. The HPR status further exhibited significant increase of MACCEs in patients with LV dysfunction in a large, real-world registry.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028