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.

Objective: This study aimed to develop a Korean version of the Nonsuicidal Self-injury Inventory (K-NSSI) through the Deliberate Self-harm Inventory (DSHI) developed by Gratz for the Korean context and confirm its reliability and validity for clinical application. Methods: A total of 188 participants were analyzed utilizing the DSHI, the Korean version of the Self-harm Inventory, the Personality Assessment Inventory-Borderline Features (PAI-BOR), and the DSM-5 Level-2-Depression scale (Level-2-Dep). Cronbach’s α assessed their reliability, while frequency analysis examined the items of the K-NSSI scales.Validity of the K-NSSI was confirmed through correlation analyses between K-NSSI (tendency for and frequency of nonsuicidal self-injury [NSSI] behavior) and SHI, PAI-BOR total scale, four subscales of PAI-BOR, and Level-2-Dep scale. Polyserial correlations analyzed the correlation between the presence of NSSI behavior and other scales.Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling explored the relationship between borderline personality features and self-harm. Results: Cronbach’s α was 0.71, indicating an “acceptable” level of reliability. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the presence of NSSI behavior and the total scores of SHI and PAI-BOR, and the four subscales of PAI-BOR. The frequency of NSSI showed statistically significant correlations with the total score of SHI and PAI-BOR, and its four subscales. Notably, 13.8% of participants reported engaging in self-harm behaviors, 26.9% reported a single occurrence, and 73.1% reported two or more instances. Structural equation modeling demonstrated that self-harm adequately predicted borderline personality traits. Conclusion This study successfully validated the adaptation of DSHI into K-NSSI. The K-NSSI can facilitate interventions for self-harm incidents.

Objective: This study aimed to develop a Korean version of the Nonsuicidal Self-injury Inventory (K-NSSI) through the Deliberate Self-harm Inventory (DSHI) developed by Gratz for the Korean context and confirm its reliability and validity for clinical application. Methods: A total of 188 participants were analyzed utilizing the DSHI, the Korean version of the Self-harm Inventory, the Personality Assessment Inventory-Borderline Features (PAI-BOR), and the DSM-5 Level-2-Depression scale (Level-2-Dep). Cronbach’s α assessed their reliability, while frequency analysis examined the items of the K-NSSI scales.Validity of the K-NSSI was confirmed through correlation analyses between K-NSSI (tendency for and frequency of nonsuicidal self-injury [NSSI] behavior) and SHI, PAI-BOR total scale, four subscales of PAI-BOR, and Level-2-Dep scale. Polyserial correlations analyzed the correlation between the presence of NSSI behavior and other scales.Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling explored the relationship between borderline personality features and self-harm. Results: Cronbach’s α was 0.71, indicating an “acceptable” level of reliability. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the presence of NSSI behavior and the total scores of SHI and PAI-BOR, and the four subscales of PAI-BOR. The frequency of NSSI showed statistically significant correlations with the total score of SHI and PAI-BOR, and its four subscales. Notably, 13.8% of participants reported engaging in self-harm behaviors, 26.9% reported a single occurrence, and 73.1% reported two or more instances. Structural equation modeling demonstrated that self-harm adequately predicted borderline personality traits. Conclusion This study successfully validated the adaptation of DSHI into K-NSSI. The K-NSSI can facilitate interventions for self-harm incidents.

Objective: This study aimed to develop a Korean version of the Nonsuicidal Self-injury Inventory (K-NSSI) through the Deliberate Self-harm Inventory (DSHI) developed by Gratz for the Korean context and confirm its reliability and validity for clinical application. Methods: A total of 188 participants were analyzed utilizing the DSHI, the Korean version of the Self-harm Inventory, the Personality Assessment Inventory-Borderline Features (PAI-BOR), and the DSM-5 Level-2-Depression scale (Level-2-Dep). Cronbach’s α assessed their reliability, while frequency analysis examined the items of the K-NSSI scales.Validity of the K-NSSI was confirmed through correlation analyses between K-NSSI (tendency for and frequency of nonsuicidal self-injury [NSSI] behavior) and SHI, PAI-BOR total scale, four subscales of PAI-BOR, and Level-2-Dep scale. Polyserial correlations analyzed the correlation between the presence of NSSI behavior and other scales.Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling explored the relationship between borderline personality features and self-harm. Results: Cronbach’s α was 0.71, indicating an “acceptable” level of reliability. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the presence of NSSI behavior and the total scores of SHI and PAI-BOR, and the four subscales of PAI-BOR. The frequency of NSSI showed statistically significant correlations with the total score of SHI and PAI-BOR, and its four subscales. Notably, 13.8% of participants reported engaging in self-harm behaviors, 26.9% reported a single occurrence, and 73.1% reported two or more instances. Structural equation modeling demonstrated that self-harm adequately predicted borderline personality traits. Conclusion This study successfully validated the adaptation of DSHI into K-NSSI. The K-NSSI can facilitate interventions for self-harm incidents.

Objective: This study aimed to develop a Korean version of the Nonsuicidal Self-injury Inventory (K-NSSI) through the Deliberate Self-harm Inventory (DSHI) developed by Gratz for the Korean context and confirm its reliability and validity for clinical application. Methods: A total of 188 participants were analyzed utilizing the DSHI, the Korean version of the Self-harm Inventory, the Personality Assessment Inventory-Borderline Features (PAI-BOR), and the DSM-5 Level-2-Depression scale (Level-2-Dep). Cronbach’s α assessed their reliability, while frequency analysis examined the items of the K-NSSI scales.Validity of the K-NSSI was confirmed through correlation analyses between K-NSSI (tendency for and frequency of nonsuicidal self-injury [NSSI] behavior) and SHI, PAI-BOR total scale, four subscales of PAI-BOR, and Level-2-Dep scale. Polyserial correlations analyzed the correlation between the presence of NSSI behavior and other scales.Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling explored the relationship between borderline personality features and self-harm. Results: Cronbach’s α was 0.71, indicating an “acceptable” level of reliability. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the presence of NSSI behavior and the total scores of SHI and PAI-BOR, and the four subscales of PAI-BOR. The frequency of NSSI showed statistically significant correlations with the total score of SHI and PAI-BOR, and its four subscales. Notably, 13.8% of participants reported engaging in self-harm behaviors, 26.9% reported a single occurrence, and 73.1% reported two or more instances. Structural equation modeling demonstrated that self-harm adequately predicted borderline personality traits. Conclusion This study successfully validated the adaptation of DSHI into K-NSSI. The K-NSSI can facilitate interventions for self-harm incidents.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Background/Aims: Palliative chemotherapy (PC) is not standardized for patients with advanced ampulla of Vater adenocarcinoma (AA). This multicenter, retrospective study evaluated first-line PC outcomes in patients with AA. Methods: Patients diagnosed with AA between January 2010 and December 2020 who underwent PC were enrolled from 10 institutions. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) according to the chemotherapy regimen were analyzed. Results: Of 255 patients (mean age, 64.0±10.0 years; male, 57.6%), 14 (5.5%) had locally advanced AA and 241 (94.5%) had metastatic AA. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) was administered as first-line chemotherapy to 192 patients (75.3%), whereas capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) was administered to 39 patients (15.3%). The median OS of all patients was 19.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3 to 22.3), and that of patients who received GP and CAPOX was 20.4 months (95% CI, 17.2 to 23.6) and 16.0 months (95% CI, 11.2 to 20.7), respectively. The median PFS of GP and CAPOX patients were 8.4 months (95% CI, 7.1 to 9.7) and 5.1 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 7.8), respectively. PC for AA demonstrated improved median outcomes in both OS and PFS compared to conventional bile duct cancers that included AA. Conclusions While previous studies have shown mixed prognostic outcomes when AA was analyzed together with other biliary tract cancers, our study unveils a distinct clinical prognosis specific to AA on a large scale with systemic anticancer therapy. These findings suggest that AA is a distinct type of tumor, different from other biliary tract cancers, and AA itself could be expected to have a favorable response to PC.