1.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
2.Expert consensus on oral corticosteroid use and tapering in severe asthma management
Joo-Hee KIM ; Noeul KANG ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Da Woon SIM ; So-Young PARK ; Jong-Sook PARK ; Hyun LEE ; Hyun Jung JIN ; Woo-Jung SONG ; So Ri KIM ; Sang-Heon KIM
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):12-21
Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.
3.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
4.Expert consensus on oral corticosteroid use and tapering in severe asthma management
Joo-Hee KIM ; Noeul KANG ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Da Woon SIM ; So-Young PARK ; Jong-Sook PARK ; Hyun LEE ; Hyun Jung JIN ; Woo-Jung SONG ; So Ri KIM ; Sang-Heon KIM
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):12-21
Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.
5.Expert consensus on oral corticosteroid use and tapering in severe asthma management
Joo-Hee KIM ; Noeul KANG ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Da Woon SIM ; So-Young PARK ; Jong-Sook PARK ; Hyun LEE ; Hyun Jung JIN ; Woo-Jung SONG ; So Ri KIM ; Sang-Heon KIM
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):12-21
Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.
6.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
7.Expert consensus on oral corticosteroid use and tapering in severe asthma management
Joo-Hee KIM ; Noeul KANG ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Da Woon SIM ; So-Young PARK ; Jong-Sook PARK ; Hyun LEE ; Hyun Jung JIN ; Woo-Jung SONG ; So Ri KIM ; Sang-Heon KIM
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):12-21
Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.
8.Expert consensus on oral corticosteroid use and tapering in severe asthma management
Joo-Hee KIM ; Noeul KANG ; Sung-Yoon KANG ; Da Woon SIM ; So-Young PARK ; Jong-Sook PARK ; Hyun LEE ; Hyun Jung JIN ; Woo-Jung SONG ; So Ri KIM ; Sang-Heon KIM
Allergy, Asthma & Respiratory Disease 2025;13(1):12-21
Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.
9.Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study
Sun Oh KIM ; Hong-Ju KIM ; Jong-Il PARK ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jong-Ho NAM ; Chan-Hee LEE ; Jang-Won SON ; Jong-Seon PARK ; Sung-Ho HER ; Ki-Yuk CHANG ; Tae-Hoon AHN ; Myung-Ho JEONG ; Seung-Woon RHA ; Hyo-Soo KIM ; Hyeon-Cheol GWON ; In-Whan SEONG ; Kyung-Kuk HWANG ; Seung-Ho HUR ; Kwang-Soo CHA ; Seok-Kyu OH ; Jei-Keon CHAE ; Ung KIM
Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science 2025;42(1):18-
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.
10.The Usefulness of Gestation Corrected Hy peruricemia as Predictors of the Recurrence of Preeclampsia and Obstetric Outcomes on Subsequent Pregnancy: A Single Center Retrospective Study in South Korea
Hee Young BANG ; Jong Woon KIM ; Yoon Ha KIM ; Myeong Gyun CHOI ; Tae Young KIM ; Tae Ho PARK
Perinatology 2024;35(4):128-133
Objective:
Hyperuricemia has been described commonly in preeclamptic pregnancies, often prece ding the diagnosis of preeclampsia and historically was used as a diagnostic marker of preeclampsia.The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of gestation corrected hyperuricemia (GCH) to predict the recurrence of preeclampsia on subsequent pregnancy.
Methods:
The retrospective study of 64 women who had previous preeclampsia and checked serum uric acid was analyzed. GCH was defined as being one standard deviation above the gestation-specific mean. And we used uric acid z-scores ([serum uric acid value-gestation specific mean]/standard deviation of the population) to account for gestation-specific alterations in uric acid and tested this as a continuous variable. The relationship between GCH and recurrence of preeclampsia on subsequent pregnancy was analyzed. Obstetric outcomes were reviewed according to absence or presence of GCH. P<0.05 was considered as significant.
Results:
Of 64 women, seventeen had the development of recurrent preeclampsia (26.6%). The absence or presence of GCH was not associated with the recurrence of preeclampsia on subsequent pregnancy (P=0.267). And gestation-specific uric acid z-score as a continuous variable did not show any association with the prediction of preeclampsia on subsequent pregnancy (P=0.427). GCH was associated with the small for gestational age (P=0.010).
Conclusion
GCH does not predict the recurrence of preeclampsia on subsequent pregnancy.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail