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.

Arrhythmias, Cardiac ; Atrial Fibrillation ; Atrioventricular Block ; Bundle-Branch Block ; Catheter Ablation ; Defibrillators ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Korea ; Male ; Observational Study ; Retrospective Studies ; Sick Sinus Syndrome ; Syncope ; Tachycardia

BACKGROUND: An implantable loop recorder (ILR) is an effective tool for diagnosing unexplained syncope (US). We examined the diagnostic utility of an ILR in detecting arrhythmic causes of US and determining which clinical factors are associated with pacemaker (PM) implantation. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted from February 2006 to April 2018 at 11 hospitals in Korea. Eligible patients with recurrent US received an ILR to diagnose recurrent syncope and document arrhythmia. RESULTS: A total of 173 US patients (mean age, 67.6 ± 16.5 years; 107 men [61.8%]) who received an ILR after a negative conventional workup were enrolled. During a mean follow-up of 9.4 ± 11.1 months, 52 patients (30.1%) had recurrent syncope, and syncope-correlated arrhythmia was confirmed in 34 patients (19.7%). The ILR analysis showed sinus node dysfunction in 24 patients (70.6%), supraventricular tachyarrhythmia in 4 (11.8%), ventricular arrhythmia in 4 (11.8%), and sudden atrioventricular block in 2 (5.9%). Overall, ILR detected significant arrhythmia in 99 patients (57.2%) irrespective of syncope. Among patients with clinically relevant arrhythmia detected by ILR, PM implantation was performed in 60 (34.7%), an intra-cardiac defibrillator in 5 (2.9%), and catheter ablation in 4 (2.3%). In a Cox regression analysis, history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) (hazard ratio [HR], 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33–4.12; P < 0.01) and any bundle branch block (BBB) (HR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.09–5.85; P = 0.03) were significantly associated with PM implantation. CONCLUSION ILR is useful for detecting syncope-correlated arrhythmia in patients with US. The risk of PM is high in US patients with a history of PAF and any BBB.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are no data comparing clinical outcomes of complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between biodegradable polymer-biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer-everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BP-BES compared with DP-EES in patients undergoing complex PCI. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the SMART-DESK registry were stratified into 2 categories based on the complexity of PCI. Complex PCI was defined as having at least one of the following features: unprotected left main lesion, ≥2 lesions treated, total stent length >40 mm, minimal stent diameter ≤2.5 mm, or bifurcation as target lesion. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 1,999 patients, 1,145 (57.3%) underwent complex PCI: 521 patients were treated with BP-BES and 624 with DP-EES. In propensity-score matching analysis (481 pairs), the risks of TLF (3.8% vs. 5.2%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.578; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.246–1.359; p=0.209), cardiac death (2.5% vs. 2.5%, adjusted HR, 0.787; 95% CI, 0.244–2.539; p=0.689), TV-MI (0.5% vs. 0.4%, adjusted HR, 1.128; 95% CI, 0.157–8.093; p=0.905), and TLR (1.1% vs. 2.9%, adjusted HR, 0.390; 95% CI, 0.139–1.095; p=0.074) did not differ between 2 stent groups after complex PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes of BP-BES were comparable to those of DP-EES at 2 years after complex PCI. Our data suggest that use of BP-BES is acceptable, even for complex PCI.
Coronary Artery Disease ; Death ; Drug-Eluting Stents ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Myocardial Infarction ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Stents

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are no data comparing clinical outcomes of complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between biodegradable polymer-biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer-everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BP-BES compared with DP-EES in patients undergoing complex PCI. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the SMART-DESK registry were stratified into 2 categories based on the complexity of PCI. Complex PCI was defined as having at least one of the following features: unprotected left main lesion, ≥2 lesions treated, total stent length >40 mm, minimal stent diameter ≤2.5 mm, or bifurcation as target lesion. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 1,999 patients, 1,145 (57.3%) underwent complex PCI: 521 patients were treated with BP-BES and 624 with DP-EES. In propensity-score matching analysis (481 pairs), the risks of TLF (3.8% vs. 5.2%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.578; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.246–1.359; p=0.209), cardiac death (2.5% vs. 2.5%, adjusted HR, 0.787; 95% CI, 0.244–2.539; p=0.689), TV-MI (0.5% vs. 0.4%, adjusted HR, 1.128; 95% CI, 0.157–8.093; p=0.905), and TLR (1.1% vs. 2.9%, adjusted HR, 0.390; 95% CI, 0.139–1.095; p=0.074) did not differ between 2 stent groups after complex PCI. CONCLUSIONS Clinical outcomes of BP-BES were comparable to those of DP-EES at 2 years after complex PCI. Our data suggest that use of BP-BES is acceptable, even for complex PCI.

We investigated the incidence, predictors, and long-term clinical outcomes of new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES). A total of 6,048 patients treated with DES were retrospectively reviewed and divided into three groups: 1) known DM (n = 2,365; fasting glucose > 126 mg/dL, glycated hemoglobin > 6.5%, already receiving DM treatment, or previous history of DM at the time of PCI); 2) non-DM (n = 3,247; no history of DM, no laboratory findings suggestive of DM at PCI, and no occurrence of DM during follow-up); and 3) new-onset DM (n = 436; non-DM features at PCI and occurrence of DM during follow-up). Among 3,683 non-DM patients, 436 (11.8%) patients were diagnosed with new-onset DM at 3.4 ± 1.9 years after PCI. Independent predictors for new-onset DM were high-intensity statin therapy, high body mass index (BMI), and high level of fasting glucose and triglycerides. The 8-year cumulative rate of major adverse cardiac events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or any revascularization) in the new-onset DM group was 19.5%, which was similar to 20.5% in the non-DM group (P = 0.467), but lower than 25.0% in the known DM group (P = 0.003). In conclusion, the incidence of new-onset DM after PCI with DES was not low. High-intensity statin therapy, high BMI, and high level of fasting glucose and triglycerides were independent predictors for new-onset DM. Long-term clinical outcomes of patients with new-onset DM after PCI were similar to those of patients without DM.
Body Mass Index ; Coronary Artery Disease ; Diabetes Mellitus* ; Drug-Eluting Stents* ; Fasting ; Glucose ; Hemoglobin A, Glycosylated ; Humans ; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors ; Incidence* ; Myocardial Infarction ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention* ; Retrospective Studies ; Stents ; Thrombosis ; Triglycerides

“Clinical Practice Guideline for Stroke Rehabilitation in Korea 2016” is the 3rd edition of clinical practice guideline (CPG) for stroke rehabilitation in Korea, which updates the 2nd edition published in 2014. Forty-two specialists in stroke rehabilitation from 21 universities and 4 rehabilitation hospitals and 4 consultants participated in this update. The purpose of this CPG is to provide optimum practical guidelines for stroke rehabilitation teams to make a decision when they manage stroke patients and ultimately, to help stroke patients obtain maximal functional recovery and return to the society. The recent two CPGs from Canada (2015) and USA (2016) and articles that were published following the 2nd edition were used to develop this 3rd edition of CPG for stroke rehabilitation in Korea. The chosen articles' level of evidence and grade of recommendation were decided by the criteria of Scotland (2010) and the formal consensus was derived by the nominal group technique. The levels of evidence range from 1++ to 4 and the grades of recommendation range from A to D. Good Practice Point was recommended as best practice based on the clinical experience of the guideline developmental group. The draft of the developed CPG was reviewed by the experts group in the public hearings and then revised. “Clinical Practice Guideline for Stroke Rehabilitation in Korea 2016” consists of ‘Chapter 1; Introduction of Stroke Rehabilitation’, ‘Chapter 2; Rehabilitation for Stroke Syndrome, ‘Chapter 3; Rehabilitation for Returning to the Society’, and ‘Chapter 4; Advanced Technique for Stroke Rehabilitation’. “Clinical Practice Guideline for Stroke Rehabilitation in Korea 2016” will provide direction and standardization for acute, subacute and chronic stroke rehabilitation in Korea.
Canada ; Consensus ; Consultants ; Humans ; Korea* ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Rehabilitation* ; Scotland ; Specialization ; Stroke*