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: 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.

Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) has been increasing in recent years, CTO PCI is still one of the most challenging procedures with relatively higher rates of procedural complications and adverse clinical events after PCI. Due to the innate limitations of invasive coronary angiography, intravascular imaging (IVI) has been used as an adjunctive tool to complement PCI, especially in complex coronary artery disease. Considering the complexity of CTO lesions, the role of IVI is particularly important in CTO intervention. IVI has been a useful adjunctive tool in every step of CTO PCI including assisted wire crossing, confirmation of wire location within CTO segment, and stent optimization. The meticulous use of IVI has been one of the greatest contributors to recent progress of CTO PCI. Nevertheless, studies evaluating the role of IVI during CTO PCI are limited. The current review provides a comprehensive overview of the mechanistic advantages of IVI in CTO PCI, summarizes previous studies and trials, and presents future perspective of IVI in CTO PCI.

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.

Background/Aims: While switching strategies of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (RIs) have sometimes been used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients, the current status of in-hospital P2Y12RI switching remains unknown. Methods: Overall, 8,476 AMI patients who underwent successful revascularization from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH) were divided according to in-hospital P2Y12RI strategies, and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding during hospitalization were compared. Results: Patients with in-hospital P2Y12RI switching accounted for 16.5%, of which 867 patients were switched from clopidogrel to potent P2Y12RI (C-P) and 532 patients from potent P2Y12RI to clopidogrel (P-C). There were no differences in NACEs among the unchanged clopidogrel, the unchanged potent P2Y12RIs, and the P2Y12RI switching groups. However, compared to the unchanged clopidogrel group, the C-P group had a higher incidence of non-fatal MI, and the P-C group had a higher incidence of TIMI major bleeding. In clinical events of in-hospital P2Y12RI switching, 90.9% of non-fatal MI occurred during pre-switching clopidogrel administration, 60.7% of TIMI major bleeding was related to pre-switching P2Y12RIs, and 71.4% of TIMI major bleeding was related to potent P2Y12RIs. Only 21.6% of the P2Y12RI switching group switched to P2Y12RIs after a loading dose (LD); however, there were no differences in clinical events between patients with and without LD. Conclusions In-hospital P2Y12RI switching occurred occasionally, but had relatively similar clinical outcomes compared to unchanged P2Y12RIs in Korean AMI patients. Non-fatal MI and bleeding appeared to be mainly related to pre-switching P2Y12RIs.