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/Aims: While switching strategies of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (RIs) have sometimes been used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients, the current status of in-hospital P2Y12RI switching remains unknown. Methods: Overall, 8,476 AMI patients who underwent successful revascularization from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH) were divided according to in-hospital P2Y12RI strategies, and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding during hospitalization were compared. Results: Patients with in-hospital P2Y12RI switching accounted for 16.5%, of which 867 patients were switched from clopidogrel to potent P2Y12RI (C-P) and 532 patients from potent P2Y12RI to clopidogrel (P-C). There were no differences in NACEs among the unchanged clopidogrel, the unchanged potent P2Y12RIs, and the P2Y12RI switching groups. However, compared to the unchanged clopidogrel group, the C-P group had a higher incidence of non-fatal MI, and the P-C group had a higher incidence of TIMI major bleeding. In clinical events of in-hospital P2Y12RI switching, 90.9% of non-fatal MI occurred during pre-switching clopidogrel administration, 60.7% of TIMI major bleeding was related to pre-switching P2Y12RIs, and 71.4% of TIMI major bleeding was related to potent P2Y12RIs. Only 21.6% of the P2Y12RI switching group switched to P2Y12RIs after a loading dose (LD); however, there were no differences in clinical events between patients with and without LD. Conclusions In-hospital P2Y12RI switching occurred occasionally, but had relatively similar clinical outcomes compared to unchanged P2Y12RIs in Korean AMI patients. Non-fatal MI and bleeding appeared to be mainly related to pre-switching P2Y12RIs.

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a fatal manifestation of ischemic heart disease and remains a major public health concern worldwide despite advances in its diagnosis and management. The characteristics of patients with AMI, as well as its disease patterns,have gradually changed over time in Korea, and the outcomes of revascularization have improved dramatically. Several characteristics associated with the revascularization of Korean patients differ from those of patients in other countries. The sophisticated state of AMI revascularization in Korea has led to the need for a Korean expert consensus. The Task Force on Expert Consensus Document of the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction has comprehensively reviewed the outcomes of large clinical trials and current practical guidelines, as well as studies on Korean patients with AMI. Based on these comprehensive reviews, the members of the task force summarize the major guidelines and recent publications, and propose an expert consensus for revascularization in patients with AMI.

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a fatal manifestation of ischemic heart disease and remains a major public health concern worldwide despite advances in its diagnosis and management. The characteristics of patients with AMI, as well as its disease patterns,have gradually changed over time in Korea, and the outcomes of revascularization have improved dramatically. Several characteristics associated with the revascularization of Korean patients differ from those of patients in other countries. The sophisticated state of AMI revascularization in Korea has led to the need for a Korean expert consensus. The Task Force on Expert Consensus Document of the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction has comprehensively reviewed the outcomes of large clinical trials and current practical guidelines, as well as studies on Korean patients with AMI. Based on these comprehensive reviews, the members of the task force summarize the major guidelines and recent publications, and propose an expert consensus for revascularization in patients with AMI.

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.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of data regarding the benefit of clopidogrel monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES). This study compared outcome between clopidogrel versus aspirin as monotherapy after DES for acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: From Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database, 1,819 patients treated with DES who were switched to monotherapy with clopidogrel (n=534) or aspirin (n=1,285) after uneventful 12-month DAPT were analyzed. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, MI, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding during the period from 12 to 24 months. RESULTS: After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients who received clopidogrel, compared with those treated with aspirin, had a similar incidence of NACE (0.7% and 0.7%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–3.60; p=0.923). The 2 groups had similar rates of death from any cause (0.1% in each group, p=0.789), MI (0.3% and 0.1%, respectively; p=0.226), repeat PCI (0.1% and 0.3%, respectively; p=0.548), stent thrombosis (0.1% and 0%, respectively; p=0.121), major bleeding (0.2% in each group, p=0.974), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (0.5% in each group, p=0.924). CONCLUSIONS Monotherapy with clopidogrel, compared to aspirin, after DAPT showed similar clinical outcomes in patients with acute MI treated with DES.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of data regarding the benefit of clopidogrel monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES). This study compared outcome between clopidogrel versus aspirin as monotherapy after DES for acute myocardial infarction (MI).METHODS: From Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database, 1,819 patients treated with DES who were switched to monotherapy with clopidogrel (n=534) or aspirin (n=1,285) after uneventful 12-month DAPT were analyzed. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, MI, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding during the period from 12 to 24 months.RESULTS: After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients who received clopidogrel, compared with those treated with aspirin, had a similar incidence of NACE (0.7% and 0.7%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–3.60; p=0.923). The 2 groups had similar rates of death from any cause (0.1% in each group, p=0.789), MI (0.3% and 0.1%, respectively; p=0.226), repeat PCI (0.1% and 0.3%, respectively; p=0.548), stent thrombosis (0.1% and 0%, respectively; p=0.121), major bleeding (0.2% in each group, p=0.974), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (0.5% in each group, p=0.924).CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with clopidogrel, compared to aspirin, after DAPT showed similar clinical outcomes in patients with acute MI treated with DES.
Aspirin ; Drug-Eluting Stents ; Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Incidence ; Korea ; Myocardial Infarction ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors ; Stents ; Stroke ; Thrombosis