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: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the SMART-CHOICE trial, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after three months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) achieved clinical outcomes comparable to those of 12 months of DAPT.Nonetheless, the effects of sex on these outcomes remain unknown. Methods: This open-label, non-inferiority, randomized study, conducted in 33 hospitals in South Korea, included 2,993 patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. Patients were randomly assigned to receive DAPT (aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor) for three months then P2Y12 inhibitor alone for nine months, or DAPT for the entire 12 months. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) 12 months after the index procedure. The bleeding endpoints were Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding types 2 to 5. Results: Of the patients, 795 (26.6%) were women, who were older and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia than men. The sexes exhibited comparable primary endpoints (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–1.55; P = 0.770) and bleeding endpoints (adjusted HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.63–1.81; P = 0.811). P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs DAPT was associated with lower risk of BARC type 2 to 5 bleeding in women (adjusted HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16–0.98; P = 0.045) but the difference was not statistically significant when using the Bonferroni correction. The primary endpoints were similar between treatment groups in both sexes. Conclusion In both sexes undergoing PCI, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after three months of DAPT achieved similar risks of the primary endpoints and the bleeding events compared with prolonged DAPT. Therefore, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal with ongoing P2Y12 inhibitors may be comparable in women and men.

Given the progressive improvements in antithrombotic strategies, management of cardiovascular disease has become sophisticated/refined. However, the optimal perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome or who are scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. Assessments of the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks are essential to reduce the rates of mortality and major cardiac events. However, the existing guidelines do not mention these topics. This case-based consensus document deals with common clinical scenarios and offers evidence-based guidelines for individualized perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in the real world.

The prevalence of ischemic heart disease is steadily growing as populations age. Antithrombotic treatment is a key therapeutic modality for the prevention of secondary cerebro-cardiovascular disease. Patients with acute coronary syndrome or who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention must be treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for a mandatory period. The optimal perioperative antithrombotic regimen remains debatable; antithrombotics can cause bleeding. Inadequate antithrombotic regimens are associated with perioperative ischemic events, but continuation of therapy may increase the risks of perioperative hemorrhagic complications (including mortality). Many guidelines on the perioperative management of antithrombotic agents have been established by academic societies. However, the existing guidelines do not cover all specialties, nor do they describe the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks associated with various surgical interventions. Moreover, few practical recommendations on the modification of antithrombotic regimens in patients who require non-deferrable interventions/surgeries or procedures associated with a high risk of hemorrhage have appeared. Therefore, cardiologists, specialists performing invasive procedures, surgeons, dentists, and anesthesiologists have not come to a consensus on optimal perioperative antithrombotic regimens. The Korean Platelet-Thrombosis Research Group presented a positioning paper on perioperative antithrombotic management. We here discuss commonly encountered clinical scenarios and engage in evidence-based discussion to assist individualized, perioperative antithrombotic management in clinical practice.

Vaccination against Newcastle disease (ND) is the most effective means of controlling the disease, and these vaccines are commercialized only after their safety and effectiveness have been verified through tests that comply with Korean Standards of National Lot Release for Veterinary Biologics. This study investigated whether a relatively convenient and safe serological test can be used in place of the challenge test using highly virulent ND virus. Hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were considered positive of log2 2 or more and cutoff value of 200 or more, respectively, in both live and inactivated vaccines. However, when the antibody levels of the live and inactivated vaccines induced using the Ulster 2C, KBNP-C4152R2L, and K148/08 strains were compared, the antibody titers for inactivated vaccines were significantly higher than those for live vaccines in both the HI assay and ELISA. A strong positive correlation was observed between HI and ELISA antibody titers. The live vaccines corresponded to a survival rates of ≥ 80% and the inactivated vaccines corresponded to 100% survival rates. This study confirmed that standard efficacy tests can serve as serological tests, and can replace the challenge test and that the vaccine approval process can be improved.

Background/Aims: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are the most widely prescribed medication for patients with vasospastic angina (VA). However, few studies have compared the prognosis of VA patients who are prescribed different CCBs. Methods: We enrolled 2,960 patients who received provocation test prospectively in 11 university hospitals in Korea. We divided 1,586 patients received four major CCBs into two groups: a first generation CCB (diltiazem and nifedipine) group and a second generation CCB (amlodipine and benidipine) group. Primary outcome was time to events of composite of death from any cause, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and symptomatic arrhythmia during 3-year follow-up. We also compared the effect of each CCB on the control of angina symptoms. Results: There was no difference of the primary outcome among the two groups with a cumulative incidence rate of 5.4%, 2.9%, and a person-month incidence rate of 2.33 and 1.26, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 1.17; p = 0.120, as reference with the 1st generation CCBs). The incidence of ACS was significantly lower in 2nd generation CCBs group with a person-month incidence rate of 1.66 vs. 0.35 (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.89; p = 0.034). Use of benidipine showed a significant better control of angina symptom compared with diltiazem for 3 years (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.32; p < 0.0001 at 3rd year). Conclusions The first and second generation CCB groups did not differ in terms of composite outcome occurrence. However, the ACS incidence rate was significantly lower in the users of the 2nd generation CCBs.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risk remains increased despite optimal low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level induced by intensive statin therapy. Therefore, recent guidelines recommend non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) as a secondary target for preventing cardiovascular events. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of omega-3 fatty acids (OM3-FAs) in combination with atorvastatin compared to atorvastatin alone in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, and phase III multicenter study included adults with fasting triglyceride (TG) levels ≥200 and <500 mg/dL and LDL-C levels <110 mg/dL. Eligible subjects were randomized to ATOMEGA (OM3-FAs 4,000 mg plus atorvastatin calcium 20 mg) or atorvastatin 20 mg plus placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in TG and non-HDL-C levels from baseline at the end of treatment. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of treatment, the percent changes from baseline in TG (−29.8% vs. 3.6%, P<0.001) and non-HDL-C (−10.1% vs. 4.9%, P<0.001) levels were significantly greater in the ATOMEGA group (n=97) than in the atorvastatin group (n=103). Moreover, the proportion of total subjects reaching TG target of <200 mg/dL in the ATOMEGA group was significantly higher than that in the atorvastatin group (62.9% vs. 22.3%, P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION The addition of OM3-FAs to atorvastatin improved TG and non-HDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to atorvastatin alone in subjects with residual hypertriglyceridemia.