http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Kang Si-Hyuck,Kim Soo-Hyun,Kim Sun-Hwa,Chun Eun Ju,Chung Woo-Young,Yoon Chang-Hwan,Park Sang-Don,Nam Chang-Wook,Kwon Ki-Hwan,Doh Joon-Hyung,Byun Young-Sup,Bae Jang-Whan,Youn Tae-Jin,Chae In-Ho 대한의학회 2023 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.38 No.32
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.
Hypertension, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system-blocking agents, and COVID-19
Kang Si-Hyuck,이동훈,Han Kyung-do,Jung Jin-Hyung,Park Sang-Hyun,Dai Andrew M.,Wei Henry G.,Yoon Chang-Hwan,연태진,채인호,김철호 대한고혈압학회 2021 Clinical Hypertension Vol.27 No.3
Background: There have been concerns regarding the safety of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS)- blocking agents including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study sought to evaluate the impact of hypertension and the use of ACEI/ARB on clinical severity in patients with COVID-19. Methods: A total of 3,788 patients aged 30 years or older who were confirmed with COVID-19 with real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction were identified from a claims-based cohort in Korea. The primary study outcome was severe clinical events, a composite of intensive care unit admission, need for ventilator care, and death. Results: Patients with hypertension (n = 1,190, 31.4 %) were older and had higher prevalence of comorbidities than those without hypertension. The risk of the primary study outcome was significantly higher in the hypertension group, even after multivariable adjustment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.67; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 2.69). Among 1,044 patients with hypertensive medical treatment, 782 (74.9 %) were on ACEI or ARB. The ACEI/ARB subgroup had a lower risk of severe clinical outcomes compared to the no ACEI/ARB group, but this did not remain significant after multivariable adjustment (aOR, 0.68; 95 % CI, 0.41 to 1.15). Conclusions: Patients with hypertension had worse COVID-19 outcomes than those without hypertension, while the use of RAAS-blocking agents was not associated with increased risk of any adverse study outcomes. The use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs did not increase the risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes, supporting current guidance to continue these medications when indicated.
Kang, Si-Hyuck,Park, Kyung Woo,Kang, Do-Yoon,Lim, Woo-Hyun,Park, Kyung Taek,Han, Jung-Kyu,Kang, Hyun-Jae,Koo, Bon-Kwon,Oh, Byung-Hee,Park, Young-Bae,Kandzari, David E.,Cohen, David J.,Hwang, Seung-Sik The European Society of Cardiology 2014 European heart journal Vol.35 No.17
<P><B>Background</B></P><P>The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of biodegradable-polymer (BP) drug-eluting stents (DES), bare metal stents (BMS), and durable-polymer DES in patients undergoing coronary revascularization, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework.</P><P><B>Methods and results</B></P><P>Study stents included BMS, paclitaxel-eluting (PES), sirolimus-eluting (SES), endeavor zotarolimus-eluting (ZES-E), cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting (CoCr-EES), platinium–chromium everolimus-eluting (PtCr-EES), resolute zotarolimus-eluting (ZES-R), and BP biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES). After a systematic electronic search, 113 trials with 90 584 patients were selected. The principal endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) defined according to the Academic Research Consortium within 1 year.</P><P><B>Results</B></P><P>Biodegradable polymer-biolimus-eluting stents [OR, 0.56; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.33–0.90], SES (OR, 0.53; 95% CrI, 0.38–0.73), CoCr-EES (OR, 0.34; 95% CrI, 0.23–0.52), and PtCr-EES (OR, 0.31; 95% CrI, 0.10–0.90) were all superior to BMS in terms of definite or probable ST within 1 year. Cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents demonstrated the lowest risk of ST of all stents at all times after stent implantation. Biodegradable polymer-biolimus-eluting stents was associated with a higher risk of definite or probable ST than CoCr-EES (OR, 1.72; 95% CrI, 1.04–2.98). All DES reduced the need for repeat revascularization, and all but PES reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with BMS.</P><P><B>Conclusions</B></P><P>All DESs but PES and ZES-E were superior to BMS in terms of ST within 1 year. Cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents was safer than any DES even including BP-BES. Our results suggest that not only the biodegradability of polymer, but the optimal combination of stent alloy, design, strut thickness, polymer, and drug all combined determine the safety of DES.</P>
Kang, Si-Hyuck,Park, Keun Ho,Ahn, Hyo-Suk,Park, Kyung Woo,Hong, Young Joon,Koo, Bon-Kwon,Jeong, Myung Ho,Kim, Hyo-Soo Société Europa édition 2014 EuroIntervention Vol.10 No.1
<P>Patients with diabetes mellitus have a higher risk of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to elucidate the relative efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) according to diabetic status.</P>
Kang Taewook,Park Si Young,Lee Soon Hyuck,Park Jong Hoon,Suh Seung Woo 대한의학회 2022 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.37 No.13
Background: Denosumab (DEN) and zoledronic acid (ZOL) currently represent the most potent antiresorptive agents for the treatment of osteoporosis. Despite similar effects on bone resorption, these agents have distinct mechanisms of action. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of DEN and ZOL after two-year administration on bone mineral density (BMD), trabecular bone score (TBS), bone turnover markers, and persistence. Methods: A total of 585 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who did not use osteoporosis medications were retrospectively reviewed. 290 patients were administered 60 mg DEN subcutaneously every 6 months from 2017 to 2018, and 295 patients were treated with 5 mg ZOL intravenously yearly from 2015 to 2017. BMD, TBS, and C-terminal crosslinking telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) measurements were obtained at baseline and two-year after DEN injection or ZOL infusion. Results: After two-year follow-up, 188 patients in the DEN group and 183 patients in the ZOL group were compared. BMD change from baseline at two years was significantly greater in the DEN group compared with the ZOL group (P < 0.001). The changes of TBS in the DEN group were statistically significant compared with baseline (P < 0.001) and the ZOL group (P < 0.001). The DEN group led to significantly greater reduction of CTX compared with ZOL group (P = 0.041). Conclusion: In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, DEN was associated with greater BMD increase at all measured skeletal sites, greater increase of TBS, and greater inhibition of bone remodeling compared with ZOL.
( Donghoon Han ),( Si-hyuck Kang ),( Youngjin Cho ),( Il-young Oh ) 대한내과학회 2019 The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine Vol.34 No.1
Background/Aims: Despite the U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration approving a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-conditional pacemaker system in 2011, many physicians remain reluctant to perform MRI scanning in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the real-world safety of MRI in these patients. Methods: This single-center retrospective study examined the interrogation data and outcomes of patients with pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillators who underwent MRI. MRI interrogation data were collected pre- and post-MRI and after 1 month of follow-up; these included the lead impedance, measured P- and R-wave amplitudes, and capture threshold. We compared these results between the magnetic resonance (MR)-conditional and conventional groups. Results: From September 2013 to December 2015, 35 patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices underwent 43 MRI scans, with a mean follow-up of 5 months. Among these 35 patients, 14 (40%) had MR-conditional devices and 21 (60%) had conventional devices. Seven patients had high voltage devices, which were all the conventional type. There were no adverse events associated with MRI during the follow-up period, and there were no significant differences in the interrogation data changes between the conventional and MR-conditional groups. Conclusions: This single-center retrospective study found that MRI can be performed safely in patients with pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillators, regardless of the MRI support, as long as appropriate precautions are taken.
Hyejung Choi,Si-Hyuck Kang,Sang-Woo Jeong,윤창환,연태진,Woo-Hyuk Song,Dong Woon Jeon,임상욱,이준희,Seong-Wook Cho,In-Ho Chae,Cheol-Ho Kim 한국지질동맥경화학회 2023 지질·동맥경화학회지 Vol.12 No.3
Objective: This phase IV, multicenter, randomized controlled, open-label, and parallel clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and moderate intensity rosuvastatin combination therapy to that of high intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods: This study enrolled patients with ASCVD and after a four-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin and ezetimibe (RE 10/10 group) or high-intensity rosuvastatin (R20 group) only in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the difference in the percent change in the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline to 12 weeks between two groups after treatment. Results: The study found that after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, the RE10/10 group had a greater reduction in LDL-C level compared to the R20 group (−22.9±2.6% vs. −15.6 ± 2.5% [p=0.041] and −24.2±2.5% vs. −12.9±2.4% [p=0.001] at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively). Moreover, a greater number of patients achieved the target LDL-C level of ≤70 mg/dL after the treatment period in the combination group (74.6% vs. 59.9% [p=0.012] and 76.2% vs. 50.8% [p<0.001] at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively). Importantly, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of overall adverse events and adverse drug reactions between two groups. Conclusion: Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy had better efficacy in lowering LDL-C levels without increasing adverse effects in patients with ASCVD than high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy.