Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

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: 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.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.

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: 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: 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: 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.

Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of brolucizumab reinjection after intraocular inflammation (IOI) development. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients with brolucizumab injections from April 2021 to January 2024. Patients who developed IOI after brolucizumab were included and categorized into subgroups depending on reinjection, discontinuation, and further IOI development. Results: A total of 472 eyes of 432 patients received brolucizumab injections. Thirty-eight cases developed IOI at least once, and 25 continued brolucizumab. Sixteen cases had no more IOI events, and nine experienced a second or more IOI events. Among the nine cases, three maintained brolucizumab injections despite IOI recurrence. The incidence of IOI was 8.1% based on the number of eyes (38 of 472 eyes) and 2.0% based on the number of brolucizumab injections (50 of 2,468 injections). The incidence of occlusive retinal vasculitis was 0.2% (1 of 472 eyes). The recurrence rate was 23.7% (9 of 38 eyes). The average number of injections between the first brolucizumab injection and the injection date on which IOI first developed was 2.15 times in the no-reinjection group, 3.44 times in the no-IOI-recurrence group, and 2.0 times in the second-IOI-episode group. Time to IOI occurrence in cases with first IOI episode was 18.60 ± 16.73 days, with 15 cases developing IOI within 1 week. Conclusions This study elucidates the real-world incidence of brolucizumab associated IOIs, with a description of information related to reinjections after the IOI episodes. A comprehensive understanding of brolucizumab reinjection is essential for its optimal utilization.