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 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.

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab is a monoclonal antibody used to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 among immunocompromised hosts and maintained neutralizing activity against early omicron variants. Omicron BN.1 became a dominant circulating strain in Korea early 2023, but its susceptibility to tixagevimab/cilgavimab is unclear. We conducted plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) against BN.1 in a prospective cohort (14 patients and 30 specimens). BN.1 PRNT was conducted for one- and three-months after tixagevimab/ cilgavimab administration and the average PRNT ND 50 of each point was lower than the positive cut-off value of 20 (12.9 ± 4.5 and 13.2 ± 4.2, respectively, P = 0.825). In the paired analyses, tixagevimab/cilgavimab-administered sera could not actively neutralize BN.1 (PRNT ND 50 11.5 ± 2.9, P = 0.001), compared with the reserved activity against BA.5 (ND 50 310.5 ± 180.4). Unlike virus-like particle assay, tixagevimab/cilgavimab was not active against BN.1 in neutralizing assay, and would not be effective in the present predominance of BA.2.75 sublineages.

Background: To investigate the clinical and microbiological features of febrile patients with upper urinary tract calculi and factors that affect empirical antibiotic resistance. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 203 febrile patients hospitalized between January 2011 and December 2016 with antibiotic treatment for urinary tract infections and upper urinary tract calculi at three institutions. We collected and analyzed data, including patients' age, sex, body mass index, underlying diseases, stone-related factors, and the results of urine and blood culture examinations and antibiotic sensitivity tests. Results: The male-to-female ratio was 1:2.3. Bacteria were identified in 152 of the 203 patients (74.9%). The most commonly cultured microorganisms included Escherichia coli (44.1%), followed by Enterococci spp. (11.8%), Proteus spp. (8.6%), Streptococcus agalactiae (6.6%), Klebsiella spp. (5.3%), Pseudomonas spp. (4.6%), coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (4.0%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (4.0%), Serratia spp. (2.6%), Enterobacter spp. (0.7%), Acinetobacter spp. (0.7%), and mixed infections (7.2%). Cultured bacterial species showed sex-specific differences. Multivariate analysis revealed that calculi's multiplicity was an independent predictive factor for quinolone resistance (P = 0.008). Recurrent infections were a significant predictor of cefotaxime resistance during multivariable analysis (P = 0.041). Conclusion Based on the present study results, quinolone was not recommended as the empirical treatment in febrile patients with upper urinary tract calculi. Combination antibiotic therapy is recommended in cases of recurrent infections due to the possible occurrence of cefotaxime resistance.

At the end of 2019, the cause of pneumonia outbreaks in Wuhan, China, was identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In February 2020, the World Health Organization named the disease cause by SARS-CoV-2 as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response to the pandemic, the Korean Cancer Association formed the COVID-19 task force to develop practice guidelines. This special article introduces the clinical practice guidelines for cancer patients which will help oncologists best manage cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the end of 2019, the cause of pneumonia outbreaks in Wuhan, China, was identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In February 2020, the World Health Organization named the disease cause by SARS-CoV-2 as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response to the pandemic, the Korean Cancer Association formed the COVID-19 task force to develop practice guidelines. This special article introduces the clinical practice guidelines for cancer patients which will help oncologists best manage cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background/Aims: Minimising total ischemic time (TIT) is important for improving clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). TIT has not shown a significant improvement due to persistent pre-hospital delay. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors associated with pre-hospital delay. Methods: Individuals enrolled in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health between 2011 and 2015 were included in this study. The study population was analyzed according to the symptom-to-door time (STDT; within 60 or > 60 minutes), and according to the type of hospital visit (emergency medical services [EMS], non-PCI center, or PCI center). Results: A total of 4,874 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 28.4% arrived at the hospital within 60 minutes of symptom-onset. Old age (> 65 years), female gender, and renewed ischemia were independent predictors of delayed STDT. Utilising EMS was the only factor shown to reduce STDT within 60 minutes, even when cardiogenic shock was evident. The overall frequency of EMS utilisation was low (21.7%). Female gender was associated with not utilising EMS, whereas cardiogenic shock, previous myocardial infarction, familial history of ischemic heart disease, and off-hour visits were associated with utilising EMS. Conclusions Factors associated with delayed STDT and not utilising EMS could be targets for preventive intervention to improve STDT and TIT.