The scientific achievements of the decades in Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry

The Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) was the first nationwide registry data collection designed to track outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). These studies reflect the current therapeutic approaches and management for AMI in Korea. The results of KAMIR could help clinicians to predict the prognosis of their patients and identify better diagnostic and treatment tools to improve the quality of care. The KAMIR score was proposed to be a predictor of the prognosis of AMI patients. Triple antiplatelet therapy, consisting of aspirin, clopidogrel and cilostazol, was effective at preventing major adverse clinical outcomes. Drug-eluting stents were effective and safe in AMI patients with no increased risk of stent thrombosis. Statin therapy was effective in Korean AMI patients, including those with very low levels of low density cholesterol. The present review summarizes the 10-year scientific achievements of KAMIR from admission to outpatient care during long-term clinical follow-up.

Differences in Clinical Outcomes Between Patients With ST-Elevation Versus Non-ST-Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction in Korea

In Korea, the incidence of acute myocardial infarction has been increasing rapidly. Twelve-month clinical outcomes for 13,133 patients with acute myocardial infarction enrolled in the nationwide prospective Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry study were analyzed according to the presence or absence of ST-segment elevation. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were younger, more likely to be men and smokers, and had poorer left ventricular function with a higher incidence of cardiac death compared to patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). NSTEMI patients had a higher prevalence of 3-vessel and left main coronary artery disease with complex lesions, and were more likely to have co-morbidities. The in-hospital and 1-month survival rates were higher in NSTEMI patients than in STEMI patients. However, 12-month survival rates was not different between the two groups. In conclusion, NSTEMI patients have worse clinical outcomes than STEMI patients, and therefore should be treated more intensively during clinical follow-up.