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 and Objectives: The objective of this study was to estimate the supply and demand for cardiologists in Korea and provide evidence for healthcare policy to ensure a stable and adequate workforce for optimal cardiovascular disease management. Methods: Past trends of inflow and outflow of cardiologists were used to make crude projections, which were then adjusted based on demands of services to obtain final projections. Inflow of cardiologists was estimated using second-order polynomial regression and demand for cardiology care was estimated using linear regression. Results: There were 1,139 active cardiologists who were under the age of 65 in clinical practice in Korea. The estimated number of cardiologists from 2022 to 2040 showed that the number of cardiologists would peak at 1,344 in 2032 and gradually decrease thereafter. We also estimated an increase of 947,811 cases of heart-related procedures annually from 2023 to 2032. The number of heart-related procedures per cardiologist would increase 1.4 times from 12,964 in 2023 to 17,862 in 2032. The estimated number of emergency patients per cardiologist under 50 years old would almost double from 544 in 2022 to 987 in 2032. Conclusions We expect significant shortage of cardiologists in Korea within the next 10 years. The number of emergency patients per cardiologist will increase by nearly 50%, leading to high individual workload for cardiologists. To prevent this imbalance between supply and demand, an organized and collective approach by the specialty of cardiology is imperative to produce a balanced workforce.

Background and Objectives: Accumulating evidence shows that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, whether SGLT2i, compared with other antidiabetic drugs, reduce the new development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. In this study, we compared SGLT2i with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) in terms of reduction in the risk of AF in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Methods: We included 42,786 propensity score-matched pairs of SGLT2i and DPP-4i users without previous AF diagnosis using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database between May 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Results: During a median follow-up of 1.3 years, SGLT2i users had a lower incidence of AF than DPP-4i users (1.95 vs. 2.65 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–0.97; p=0.028]). In individuals without heart failure, SGLT2i users was associated with a decreased risk of AF incidence (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52–0.94; p=0.019) compared to DPP-4i users. However, individuals with heart failure, SGLT2i users was not significantly associated with a change in risk (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.44–2.44; p=0.936). Conclusions In this nationwide cohort study of individuals with type 2 diabetes, treatment with SGLT2i was associated with a lower risk of AF compared with treatment with DPP-4i.

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.

Allergic rhinitis is the most common chronic disease worldwide. Various upper airway symptoms lower quality of life, and due to the recurrent symptoms, multiple treatments are usually attempted rather than one definitive treatment. There are alternatives to medical (medication-based) and nonmedical treatments. A guideline is needed to understand allergic rhinitis and develop an appropriate treatment plan. We have developed guidelines for medical treatment based on previous reports. The current guidelines herein are associated with the “KAAACI Evidence-Based Guidelines for Allergic Rhinitis in Korea, Part 1: Update in pharmacotherapy” in which we aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the medical treatment of allergic rhinitis. Part 2 focuses on nonpharmacological management, including allergen-specific immunotherapy, subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy, nasal saline irrigation, environmental management strategies, companion animal management, and nasal turbinate surgery. The evidence to support the treatment efficacy, safety, and selection has been systematically reviewed. However, larger controlled studies are needed to elevate the level of evidence to select rational non-medical therapeutic options for patients with allergic rhinitis.

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines for AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and a systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of data regarding the benefit of clopidogrel monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES). This study compared outcome between clopidogrel versus aspirin as monotherapy after DES for acute myocardial infarction (MI).METHODS: From Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database, 1,819 patients treated with DES who were switched to monotherapy with clopidogrel (n=534) or aspirin (n=1,285) after uneventful 12-month DAPT were analyzed. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, MI, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding during the period from 12 to 24 months.RESULTS: After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients who received clopidogrel, compared with those treated with aspirin, had a similar incidence of NACE (0.7% and 0.7%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–3.60; p=0.923). The 2 groups had similar rates of death from any cause (0.1% in each group, p=0.789), MI (0.3% and 0.1%, respectively; p=0.226), repeat PCI (0.1% and 0.3%, respectively; p=0.548), stent thrombosis (0.1% and 0%, respectively; p=0.121), major bleeding (0.2% in each group, p=0.974), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (0.5% in each group, p=0.924).CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with clopidogrel, compared to aspirin, after DAPT showed similar clinical outcomes in patients with acute MI treated with DES.
Aspirin ; Drug-Eluting Stents ; Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Incidence ; Korea ; Myocardial Infarction ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors ; Stents ; Stroke ; Thrombosis