Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science

Original article

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study: Sun Oh Kim, Hong-Ju Kim, Jong-Il Park, Kang-Un Choi, Jong-Ho Nam, Chan-Hee Lee, Jang-Won Son, Jong-Seon Park, Sung-Ho Her, Ki-Yuk Chang, Tae-Hoon Ahn, Myung-Ho Jeong, Seung-Woon Rha, Hyo-Soo Kim, Hyeon-Cheol Gwon, In-Whan Seong, Kyung-Kuk Hwang, Seung-Ho Hur, Kwang-Soo Cha, Seok-Kyu Oh, Jei-Keon Chae, Ung Kim; J Yeungnam Med Sci. 2025;42:18. Published online December 19, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.12701/jyms.2025.42.18

6,452 View
147 Download

Abstract PDF: 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.

Review article

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Invasive strategies for rhythm control of atrial fibrillation: a narrative review: Hong-Ju Kim, Chan-Hee Lee; J Yeungnam Med Sci. 2024;41(4):279-287. Published online September 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.12701/jyms.2024.00703

1,483 View
45 Download

Abstract PDF: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained tachyarrhythmia and its increasing prevalence has resulted in a growing healthcare burden. A recent landmark randomized trial, the EAST-AFNET 4 (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial), highlighted the importance of early rhythm control in AF, which was previously underemphasized. Rhythm control therapy includes antiarrhythmic drugs, direct-current cardioversion, and catheter ablation. Currently, catheter ablation is indicated for patients with AF who are either refractory or intolerant to antiarrhythmic drugs or who exhibit decreased left ventricular systolic function. Catheter ablation can be categorized according to the energy source used, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoablation, laser ablation, and the recently emerging pulsed field ablation (PFA). Catheter ablation techniques can also be divided into the point-by-point ablation method, which ablates the pulmonary vein (PV) antrum one point at a time, and the single-shot technique, which uses a spherical catheter to ablate the PV antrum in a single application. PFA is known to be applicable to both point-by-point and single-shot techniques and is expected to be promising owing to its tissue specificity, resulting in less collateral damage than catheter ablation involving thermal energy, such as RFA and cryoablation. In this review, we aimed to outline catheter ablation for rhythm control in AF by reviewing previous studies.

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search