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: Endovascular therapy (EVT) first strategy has been widely adopted for the treatment of chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients in realworld practice. This study aimed to investigate long-term outcomes of CLTI patients who underwent EVT and identify prognostic factors. Methods: From the retrospective cohorts of a Korean multicenter endovascular therapy registry, 1,036 patients with CLTI (792 men, 68.8 ± 9.5 years) were included. The primary endpoint was amputation-free survival (AFS) defined as the absence of major amputation or death. Secondary endpoints were major adverse limb events (MALE; a composite of major amputation, minor amputation, and reintervention). Results: Five-year AFS and freedom from MALE were 69.8% and 61%, respectively. After multivariate analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.476; p<0.001), end-stage renal disease (ESRD; HR, 2.340; p<0.001), Rutherford category (RC) 6 (HR, 1.456; p=0.036), and suboptimal EVT (HR, 1.798; p=0.005) were identified as predictors of major amputation or death, whereas smoking (HR, 0.594; p=0.007) was protective. Low body mass index (HR, 1.505; p=0.046), ESRD (HR, 1.648; p=0.001), femoropopliteal lesion (HR, 1.877; p=0.004), RC-6 (HR, 1.471;p=0.008), and suboptimal EVT (HR, 1.847; p=0.001) were predictors of MALE. The highest hazard rates were observed during the first 6 months for both major amputation or death and MALE. After that, the hazard rate decreased and rose again after 3–4 years. Conclusions In CLTI patients, long-term outcomes of EVT were acceptable. ESRD, RC-6, and suboptimal EVT were common predictors for poor clinical outcomes.

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.

Purpose: In the past, spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy (DP) was preferred; however, more recent studies reported comparable results between splenectomy and spleen preserving. We retrospectively reviewed patients in a single center who underwent laparoscopic DP with/without splenectomy, and evaluated the chronologic changes of surgical outcomes of the two procedures. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent laparoscopic DP with or without splenectomy due to benign/borderline tumor from 2005 to 2019 were included in this study. We divided this period into Era 1 (2005–2012) and Era 2 (2013–2019), and compared the chronological evolution of surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDPS) to those of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSpDP), including the long-term postoperative immunologic profiles. Results: A total of 198 cases were included (LSpDP: 80 cases; LDPS: 118 cases). As the period changed from Era 1 to Era 2, the ratio of LSpDP decreased and the surgical outcomes of LDPS improved. In Era 1, LSpDP group showed superior results compared to LDPS group in terms of hospital days and postoperative pancreatic fistula ratio; however, in Era 2, the surgical outcomes showed no statistical differences. No significant differences were observed in all of the immunologic markers. Conclusion We carefully conclude that during laparoscopic DP, combined splenectomy can be equivalent to spleen preserving in surgical and immunological outcomes, and inevitable splenectomy can be safely conducted.

Sudden cardiac death is an unexpected death originating from the heart that occurs within an hour of the onset of symptoms. The main cause of sudden cardiac death is arrhythmia; however, diagnosing underlying structural heart disease significantly contributes to predicting the long-term risk. Cardiovascular CT and MR provide important information for diagnosing and evaluating structural heart disease, enabling the prediction and preparation of the risk of sudden cardiac death. Therefore, we would like to focus on the various structural heart diseases that increase the risk of clinically-important sudden cardiac death and the importance of imaging findings.

Sudden cardiac death is an unexpected death originating from the heart that occurs within an hour of the onset of symptoms. The main cause of sudden cardiac death is arrhythmia; however, diagnosing underlying structural heart disease significantly contributes to predicting the long-term risk. Cardiovascular CT and MR provide important information for diagnosing and evaluating structural heart disease, enabling the prediction and preparation of the risk of sudden cardiac death. Therefore, we would like to focus on the various structural heart diseases that increase the risk of clinically-important sudden cardiac death and the importance of imaging findings.

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