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: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Ketone bodies produced by sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can be advantageous, providing an efficient and stable energy source for the brain and muscles. However, in patients with diabetes, ketogenesis induced by SGLT2 inhibitors may be harmful, potentially resulting in severe diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). During fasting, ketone body production serves as an alternative and efficient energy source for the brain by utilizing stored fat, promoting mental clarity, and reducing dependence on glucose. The concurrent use of SGLT2 inhibitors during perioperative fasting may further elevate the risk of euglycemic DKA. We describe a case of DKA that occurred during perioperative fasting in a patient receiving empagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor. This case underscores the importance of recognizing the potential risk of DKA in patients with diabetes using SGLT2 inhibitors during perioperative fasting.

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: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Ketone bodies produced by sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can be advantageous, providing an efficient and stable energy source for the brain and muscles. However, in patients with diabetes, ketogenesis induced by SGLT2 inhibitors may be harmful, potentially resulting in severe diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). During fasting, ketone body production serves as an alternative and efficient energy source for the brain by utilizing stored fat, promoting mental clarity, and reducing dependence on glucose. The concurrent use of SGLT2 inhibitors during perioperative fasting may further elevate the risk of euglycemic DKA. We describe a case of DKA that occurred during perioperative fasting in a patient receiving empagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor. This case underscores the importance of recognizing the potential risk of DKA in patients with diabetes using SGLT2 inhibitors during perioperative fasting.

Long coronavirus disease (COVID) is a condition in which coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms persist for over 3 months, and currently poses a global public health challenge. Due to varying manifestations and lack of standardized definitions, diagnostic methods, and treatments, comprehensive clinical guidelines are required. This review article, summarizing research and expert consensus up to June 2023, provides recommendations for diagnosis and long-term management of long COVID symptoms. It emphasizes thorough patient evaluation, including medical history, physical examinations, and tests, and advocates vaccination and antiviral treatments to reduce risk. Guidelines for long COVID will be updated as new knowledge emerges.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.