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: Recent reports have suggested that pneumonitis is a rare complication following vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).However, its clinical features and outcomes are not well known. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with vaccine-associated pneumonitis following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: In this nationwide multicenter survey study, questionnaires were distributed to pulmonary physicians in referral hospitals. They were asked to report cases of development or exacerbation of interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. Vaccine-associated pneumonitis was defined as new pulmonary infiltrates documented on chest computed tomography within 4 weeks of vaccination and exclusion of other possible etiologies. Results: From the survey, 49 cases of vaccine-associated pneumonitis were identified between February 27 and October 30, 2021. After multidisciplinary discussion, 46 cases were analyzed. The median age was 66 years and 28 (61%) were male. The median interval between vaccination and respiratory symptoms was 5 days. There were 20 (43%), 17 (37%), and nine (19%) patients with newly identified pneumonitis, exacerbation of pre-diagnosed ILD, and undetermined pre-existing ILD, respectively. The administered vaccines were BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCov-19/AZD1222 each in 21 patients followed by mRNA-1273 in three, and Ad26.COV2.S in one patient. Except for five patients with mild disease, 41 (89%) patients were treated with corticosteroid. Significant improvement was observed in 26 (57%) patients including four patients who did not receive treatment. However, ILD aggravated in 9 (20%) patients despite treatment. Mortality was observed in eight (17%) patients. Conclusion These results suggest pneumonitis as a potentially significant safety concern for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical awareness and patient education are necessary for early recognition and prompt management. Additional research is warranted to identify the epidemiology and characterize the pathophysiology of vaccine-associated pneumonitis.

Objective: Data pertaining to the prognostic value of the combination of high neutrophilto-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and anemia on admission in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are limited. The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical value of baseline NLR in combination with anemia in predicting clinical outcomes after STEMI. Methods: A total of 5,194 consecutive patients with STEMI within 12 hours of symptom onset from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database between 2011 and 2015 were categorized into 4 groups according to their NLR and hemoglobin levels: low NLR (<4) without anemia (n=2,722; reference group); high NLR (≥4) without anemia (n=1,527); low NLR with anemia (n=508); and high NLR with anemia (n=437). The co-primary outcomes were 180-day and 3-year all-cause mortality. Results: Mortality rates significantly increased at the 3-year follow-up across the groups (3.3% vs. 5.4% vs. 16.5% vs. 21.7% for 180-day mortality and 5.3% vs. 9.0% vs. 23.8% vs. 33.4% for 3-year mortality; all p-trends <0.001). After adjusting for baseline covariates, the combination of high NLR and anemia was a significant predictor of 180-day mortality after STEMI with low NLR and no anemia as the reference (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.58–2.95; p<0.001). Similar findings were observed for the 3-year mortality. Conclusions This nationwide prospective cohort study showed that the combination of high NLR (≥4) and anemia is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality after STEMI.

Background and Objectives: The outcome benefits of β-blockers in chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) have not been fully assessed. We evaluated the prognostic impact of β-blockers on patients with chronic CAD after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: A total of 3,075 patients with chronic CAD were included from the Grand DrugEluting Stent registry. We analyzed β-blocker prescriptions, including doses and types, in each patient at 3-month intervals from discharge. After propensity score matching, 1,170 pairs of patients (β-blockers vs. no β-blockers) were derived. Primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI). We further analyzed the outcome benefits of different doses (low-, medium-, and high-dose) and types (conventional or vasodilating) of β-blockers. Results: During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3.1 (3.0–3.1) years, 134 (5.7%) patients experienced primary outcome. Overall, β-blockers demonstrated no significant benefit in primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–1.24), all-cause death (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60–1.25), and MI (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.49–3.15). In subgroup analysis, β-blockers were associated with a lower risk of all-cause death in patients with previous MI and/ or revascularization (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14–0.99) (p for interaction=0.045). No significant associations were found for the clinical outcomes with different doses and types of β-blockers. Conclusions Overall, β-blocker therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with chronic CAD undergoing PCI. Limited mortality benefit of β-blockers may exist for patients with previous MI and/or revascularization.