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 Purpose In young patients (aged 18–60 years) with patent foramen ovale (PFO)- associated stroke, percutaneous closure has been found to be useful for preventing recurrent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, it remains unknown whether PFO closure is also beneficial in older patients. Methods: Patients aged ≥60 years who had a cryptogenic stroke and PFO from ten hospitals in South Korea were included. The effect of PFO closure plus medical therapy over medical therapy alone was assessed by a propensity-score matching method in the overall cohort and in those with a high-risk PFO, characterized by the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm or a large shunt. Results: Out of the 437 patients (mean age, 68.1), 303 (69%) had a high-risk PFO and 161 (37%) patients underwent PFO closure. Over a median follow-up of 3.9 years, recurrent ischemic stroke or TIA developed in 64 (14.6%) patients. In the propensity score-matched cohort of the overall patients (130 pairs), PFO closure was associated with a significantly lower risk of a composite of ischemic stroke or TIA (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24–0.84; P=0.012), but not for ischemic stroke. In a subgroup analysis of confined to the high-risk PFO patients (116 pairs), PFO closure was associated with significantly lower risks of both the composite of ischemic stroke or TIA (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.21–0.77; P=0.006) and ischemic stroke (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.23–0.95; P=0.035). Conclusion Elderly patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO have a high recurrence rate of ischemic stroke or TIA, which may be significantly reduced by device closure.

Background: The risk of device thrombosis and device-oriented clinical outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was reported to be significantly higher than with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, optimal device implantation may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving BVS. The current study evaluated mid-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS with meticulous device optimization under intravascular imaging guidance. Methods: The SMART-REWARD and PERSPECTIVE-PCI registries in Korea prospectively enrolled 390 patients with BVS and 675 patients with DES, respectively. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years and the secondary major endpoint was patientoriented composite outcome (POCO) at 2 years. Results: Patient-level pooled analysis evaluated 1,003 patients (377 patients with BVS and 626 patients with DES). Mean scaffold diameter per lesion was 3.24 ± 0.30 mm in BVS group.Most BVSs were implanted with pre-dilatation (90.9%), intravascular imaging guidance (74.9%), and post-dilatation (73.1%) at proximal to mid segment (81.9%) in target vessel.Patients treated with BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF (2.9% vs. 3.7%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.283, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487–3.378, P = 0.615) and 2-year POCO (4.5% vs. 5.9%, adjusted HR, 1.413, 95% CI, 0.663–3.012,P = 0.370) than those with DES. The rate of 2-year definite or probable device thrombosis (0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.424) was also similar. The sensitivity analyses consistently showed comparable risk of TVF and POCO between the 2 groups. Conclusion With meticulous device optimization under imaging guidance and avoidance of implantation in small vessels, BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF and device thrombosis with DES.

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.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.

Since 1995, the Korean Society for Cytopathology has overseen the Continuous Quality Improvement program for cytopathology laboratories. The Committee of Quality Improvement has carried out an annual survey of cytology data for each laboratory and set standards for proficiency tests. Methods: Evaluations were conducted four times per year from 2008 to 2018 and comprised statistics regarding cytology diagnoses of previous years, proficiency tests using cytology slides provided by the committee, assessment of adequacy of gynecology (GYN) cytology slides, and submission of cytology slides for proficiency tests. Results: A total of 206 institutes participated in 2017, and the results were as follows. The number of cytology tests increased from year to year. The ratio of liquid-based cytology in GYN gradually decreased, as most of the GYN cytology had been performed at commercial laboratories. The distribution of GYN diagnoses demonstrated nearly 3.0% as atypical squamous cells. The rate for squamous cell carcinoma was less than 0.02%. The atypical squamous cell/squamous intraepithelial lesion ratio was about 3:1 and showed an upward trend. The major discordant rate of cytology-histology in GYN cytology was less than 1%. The proficiency test maintained a major discordant rate less than 2%. The rate of inappropriate specimens for GYN cytology slides gradually decreased. Conclusions: The Continuous Quality Improvement program should be included in quality assurance programs. Moreover, these data can contribute to development of national cancer examination guidelines and facilitate cancer prevention and treatment.

PURPOSE: This study sought to determine the 1-year clinical effectiveness and safety of a biodegradable, polymer-containing Biolimus A9™-eluting stent (BES) in Korean patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1000 ACS patients with 1251 lesions who underwent implantation of BESs at 22 centers in Korea were enrolled between May 2011 and July 2013. We assessed major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as the composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and clinical-driven target vessel revascularization at 12 months. RESULTS: Patient mean age was 62.6±11.4 years. 72.8% of the patients were male, 28.5% had diabetes, 32.8% had multi-vessel disease (MVD), and 47.9% presented with acute MI (AMI). The mean global registry of acute coronary events risk score of all patients was 103.0±27.6. The number of stents per patient was 1.3±0.6. The incidences of MACE and definite stent thrombosis at 12 months were 3.9% and 0.2%, respectively. On multivariate Cox-regression analysis, age ≥65 years was identified as an independent predictors of 1-year MACE (hazard ratio=2.474; 95% confidence interval=1.202−5.091). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences in the incidence of MACE between patients with and without diabetes (4.3% vs. 3.7%, p=0.667), between those who presented with and without AMI (4.4% vs. 3.4%, p=0.403), and between those with and without MVD (4.6% vs. 3.5%, p=0.387). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated excellent 1-year clinical outcomes of BES implantation in patients at low-risk for ACS.
Acute Coronary Syndrome/drug therapy ; Aged ; Drug-Eluting Stents/adverse effects ; Female ; Humans ; Incidence ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Multivariate Analysis ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Republic of Korea ; Sirolimus/adverse effects ; Sirolimus/analogs & derivatives ; Sirolimus/therapeutic use ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome