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 and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the epidemiological characteristics and outcomes of myocarditis/pericarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination in Korean adolescents. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of adolescents aged 12–19 years old diagnosed with myocarditis/pericarditis within 42 days of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination. All reported cases were investigated by city or government epidemiologists and the diagnostic certainty and causality was determined by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency’s Adverse Event Following Immunization Expert Advisory Committee according to the modified version of Brighton Collaboration Myocarditis/Pericarditis Working group’s case definitions. Results: A total 3,709,063 adolescents aged 12–19 received 8,135,240 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine in South Korea, and 184 cases met the Brighton criteria for the case definition of myocarditis and pericarditis with diagnostic certainty of possible and above. The median age was 17 years old (interquartile range [IQR], 15–18) and boys accounted for 81.5% (n = 150/184) of the cases. The overall incidence was 2.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.94–2.60) cases per 100,000 doses and severe cases was 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15–3.80) cases per 100,000 doses.The highest incidence rate was observed in boys after the second dose, with 5.01 (95% CI, 4.12–6.17) cases per 100,000 doses. A total 89.1% (164/184) were classified as mild, and no deaths were reported. Conclusion The highest incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis after BNT162b2 immunization was observed in male adolescents after the second dose, with majority of the cases presenting with a mild clinical course and favorable outcome.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the epidemiological characteristics and outcomes of myocarditis/pericarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination in Korean adolescents. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of adolescents aged 12–19 years old diagnosed with myocarditis/pericarditis within 42 days of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination. All reported cases were investigated by city or government epidemiologists and the diagnostic certainty and causality was determined by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency’s Adverse Event Following Immunization Expert Advisory Committee according to the modified version of Brighton Collaboration Myocarditis/Pericarditis Working group’s case definitions. Results: A total 3,709,063 adolescents aged 12–19 received 8,135,240 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine in South Korea, and 184 cases met the Brighton criteria for the case definition of myocarditis and pericarditis with diagnostic certainty of possible and above. The median age was 17 years old (interquartile range [IQR], 15–18) and boys accounted for 81.5% (n = 150/184) of the cases. The overall incidence was 2.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.94–2.60) cases per 100,000 doses and severe cases was 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15–3.80) cases per 100,000 doses.The highest incidence rate was observed in boys after the second dose, with 5.01 (95% CI, 4.12–6.17) cases per 100,000 doses. A total 89.1% (164/184) were classified as mild, and no deaths were reported. Conclusion The highest incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis after BNT162b2 immunization was observed in male adolescents after the second dose, with majority of the cases presenting with a mild clinical course and favorable outcome.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the epidemiological characteristics and outcomes of myocarditis/pericarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination in Korean adolescents. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of adolescents aged 12–19 years old diagnosed with myocarditis/pericarditis within 42 days of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination. All reported cases were investigated by city or government epidemiologists and the diagnostic certainty and causality was determined by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency’s Adverse Event Following Immunization Expert Advisory Committee according to the modified version of Brighton Collaboration Myocarditis/Pericarditis Working group’s case definitions. Results: A total 3,709,063 adolescents aged 12–19 received 8,135,240 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine in South Korea, and 184 cases met the Brighton criteria for the case definition of myocarditis and pericarditis with diagnostic certainty of possible and above. The median age was 17 years old (interquartile range [IQR], 15–18) and boys accounted for 81.5% (n = 150/184) of the cases. The overall incidence was 2.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.94–2.60) cases per 100,000 doses and severe cases was 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15–3.80) cases per 100,000 doses.The highest incidence rate was observed in boys after the second dose, with 5.01 (95% CI, 4.12–6.17) cases per 100,000 doses. A total 89.1% (164/184) were classified as mild, and no deaths were reported. Conclusion The highest incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis after BNT162b2 immunization was observed in male adolescents after the second dose, with majority of the cases presenting with a mild clinical course and favorable outcome.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.