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.

Allergic rhinitis is the most common chronic disease worldwide. Various upper airway symptoms lower quality of life, and due to the recurrent symptoms, multiple treatments are usually attempted rather than one definitive treatment. There are alternatives to medical (medication-based) and nonmedical treatments. A guideline is needed to understand allergic rhinitis and develop an appropriate treatment plan. We have developed guidelines for medical treatment based on previous reports. The current guidelines herein are associated with the “KAAACI Evidence-Based Guidelines for Allergic Rhinitis in Korea, Part 1: Update in pharmacotherapy” in which we aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the medical treatment of allergic rhinitis. Part 2 focuses on nonpharmacological management, including allergen-specific immunotherapy, subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy, nasal saline irrigation, environmental management strategies, companion animal management, and nasal turbinate surgery. The evidence to support the treatment efficacy, safety, and selection has been systematically reviewed. However, larger controlled studies are needed to elevate the level of evidence to select rational non-medical therapeutic options for patients with allergic rhinitis.

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines for AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and a systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on computed tomography (CT) has been shown to better identify ischemia-causing coronary stenosis. However, this current technology requires high computational power, which inhibits its widespread implementation in clinical practice. This prospective, multicenter study aimed at validating the diagnostic performance of a novel simple CT based fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) calculation method in patients with coronary artery disease. Methods: Patients who underwent coronary CT angiography (CCTA) within 90 days and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were prospectively enrolled. A hemodynamically significant lesion was defined as an FFR ≤ 0.80, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was the primary measure. After the planned analysis for the initial algorithm A, we performed another set of exploratory analyses for an improved algorithm B. Results: Of 184 patients who agreed to participate in the study, 151 were finally analyzed.Hemodynamically significant lesions were observed in 79 patients (52.3%). The AUC was 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–0.80) for CCTA, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.56–0.74) for CT-FFR algorithm A (P = 0.866), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.70–0.86) for algorithm B (P = 0.112). Diagnostic accuracy was 0.63 (0.55–0.71) for CCTA alone, 0.66 (0.58–0.74) for algorithm A, and 0.76 (0.68–0.82) for algorithm B. Conclusion This study suggests the feasibility of automated CT-FFR, which can be performed on-site within several hours. However, the diagnostic performance of the current algorithm does not meet the a priori criteria for superiority. Future research is required to improve the accuracy.

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.

To investigate the adverse effects of clozapine on cardiovascular ion channels, we examined the inhibitory effect of clozapine on voltage-dependent K+(Kv) channels in rabbit coronary arterial smooth muscle cells. Clozapine-induced inhibition of Kv channels occurred in a concentration-dependent manner with an halfinhibitory concentration value of 7.84 ± 4.86 µM and a Hill coefficient of 0.47 ± 0.06.Clozapine did not shift the steady-state activation or inactivation curves, suggesting that it inhibited Kv channels regardless of gating properties. Application of train pulses (1 and 2 Hz) progressively augmented the clozapine-induced inhibition of Kv channels in the presence of the drug. Furthermore, the recovery time constant from inactivation was increased in the presence of clozapine, suggesting that clozapineinduced inhibition of Kv channels is use (state)-dependent. Pretreatment of a Kv1.5 subtype inhibitor decreased the Kv current amplitudes, but additional application of clozapine did not further inhibit the Kv current. Pretreatment with Kv2.1 or Kv7 subtype inhibitors partially blocked the inhibitory effect of clozapine. Based on these results, we conclude that clozapine inhibits arterial Kv channels in a concentrationand use (state)-dependent manner. Kv1.5 is the major subtype involved in clozapineinduced inhibition of Kv channels, and Kv2.1 and Kv7 subtypes are partially involved.

Background and Objectives: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-STsegment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Methods: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. Results: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48– 0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48–2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). Conclusions Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.