Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

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.

Background and Objectives: Concerns remain that early aspirin cessation may be associated with potential harm in subsets at high risk of ischemic events. This study aimed to assess the effects of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs.prolonged DAPT (12-month or longer) based on the ischemic risk stratification, the CHADSP2A2RC, after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: This was a sub-study of the SMART-CHOICE trial. The effect of the randomized antiplatelet strategies was assessed across 3 CHADS-P2A2RC risk score categories. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Results: Up to 3 years, the high CHADS-P2A2RC risk score group had the highest incidence of MACCE (105 [12.1%], adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.927; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.358–6.309; p=0.006) followed by moderate-risk (40 [1.4%], adjusted HR, 1.786; 95% CI, 0.868–3.674; p=0.115) and low-risk (9 [0.5%], reference). In secondary analyses, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduced the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding without increasing the risk of MACCE as compared with prolonged DAPT across the 3 CHADS-P2A2RC risk strata without significant interaction term (interaction p for MACCE=0.705 and interaction p for BARC types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding=0.055). Conclusions The CHADS-P2A2RC risk score is valuable in discriminating high-ischemicrisk patients. Even in such patients with a high risk of ischemic events, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a lower incidence of bleeding without increased risk of ischemic events compared with prolonged DAPT.

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.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although complete revascularization is known superior to incomplete revascularization in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCD), there are no definite instructions on the optimal timing of non-culprit lesions percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared 1-year clinical outcomes between 2 different complete multi-vessel revascularization strategies. METHODS: From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health, 606 patients with STEMI and MVCD who underwent complete revascularization were enrolled from November 2011 to December 2015. The patients were assigned to multi-vessel single-staged PCI (SS PCI) group (n=254) or multi-vessel multi-staged PCI (MS PCI) group (n=352). Propensity score matched 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: At one year, MS PCI showed a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidential interval [CI], 0.19–0.92; p=0.030) compared with SS PCI. In subgroup analysis, all-cause mortality increased in SS PCI with cardiogenic shock (HR, 4.60; 95% CI, 1.54–13.77; p=0.006), age ≥65 years (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.67–9.58, p=0.002), Killip class III/IV (HR, 7.32; 95% CI, 1.68–31.87; p=0.008), and creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min (HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.10–7.18; p=0.031). After propensity score-matching, MS PCI showed a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular event than SS PCI. CONCLUSIONS SS PCI was associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with MS PCI. MS PCI for non-infarct-related artery could be a better option for patients with STEMI and MVCD, especially high-risk patients.

Purpose: This study was conducted to identify the factors influencing organizational commitment and resilience onpresenteeism in clinical nurses. Methods: The subjects were 202 nurses working at 5 hospitals in B city. The data were collected through questionnaires and analyzed by t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and stepwise multiple regression. Results: Work impairment was negatively correlated with organizational commitment and resilience. Perceived productivity was positively correlated with organizational commitment and resilience. Influencing factors on work impairment were organizational commitment (β=-.22 p=.005) and hardiness (β=-.16, p=.042), with 10% explanatory power. Influencing factors on perceived productivity were organizational commitment (β=.24, p=.002) and hardiness (β=.16, p=.042), with 11% explanatory power. Conclusion Based on this research, appropriate programs and policies that consider influencing factors such as organizational commitment and hardiness in resilience are needed to reduce the level of presenteeism in clinical nurses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although complete revascularization is known superior to incomplete revascularization in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCD), there are no definite instructions on the optimal timing of non-culprit lesions percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared 1-year clinical outcomes between 2 different complete multi-vessel revascularization strategies.METHODS: From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health, 606 patients with STEMI and MVCD who underwent complete revascularization were enrolled from November 2011 to December 2015. The patients were assigned to multi-vessel single-staged PCI (SS PCI) group (n=254) or multi-vessel multi-staged PCI (MS PCI) group (n=352). Propensity score matched 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.RESULTS: At one year, MS PCI showed a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidential interval [CI], 0.19–0.92; p=0.030) compared with SS PCI. In subgroup analysis, all-cause mortality increased in SS PCI with cardiogenic shock (HR, 4.60; 95% CI, 1.54–13.77; p=0.006), age ≥65 years (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.67–9.58, p=0.002), Killip class III/IV (HR, 7.32; 95% CI, 1.68–31.87; p=0.008), and creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min (HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.10–7.18; p=0.031). After propensity score-matching, MS PCI showed a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular event than SS PCI.CONCLUSIONS: SS PCI was associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with MS PCI. MS PCI for non-infarct-related artery could be a better option for patients with STEMI and MVCD, especially high-risk patients.
Arteries ; Coronary Artery Disease ; Coronary Vessels ; Creatinine ; Humans ; Korea ; Mortality ; Myocardial Infarction ; Myocardial Revascularization ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Propensity Score ; Shock, Cardiogenic