Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a standard physiological index for guiding coronary revascularization, with a threshold of >0.80 typically used to defer intervention. However, due to its distinct anatomical and physiological features, the left anterior descending artery (LAD) often exhibits lower FFR values than non-LAD vessels for lesions of similar angiographic severity. These vessel-specific differences raise concerns about applying a uniform FFR cutoff across all coronary territories. Observational studies indicate that LAD lesions deferred at an FFR of 0.80 may have similar or better outcomes than non-LAD lesions do. LAD lesions also tend to show lower post-percutaneous coronary intervention FFR values, suggesting that vessel specific target thresholds may be more prognostically appropriate. Additionally, some evidence suggests that instantaneous wave-free ratio may offer greater prognostic value than FFR, specifically in LAD lesions, a trend not consistently seen in other arteries. In patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, the prognostic relevance of non-culprit lesion FFR may vary by coronary territory, particularly in the LAD. This review outlines the physiological rationale and clinical evidence for vessel-specific interpretation of FFR, with a focus on the LAD, and explores its potential clinical implications and limitations.

Background/Objectives: Self-recognition of recurrent myocardial infarction (re-MI) may be essential for reducing prehospital time contrast to awareness of re-MI symptoms. However, data on the current status and clinical impact of self-recognition of re-MI are limited in the contemporary period. Thus, this study aimed to increase this body of knowledge. Methods: We enrolled 1018 patients with re-MI using data from the Korean Registry of Acute Myocardial Infarction for Regional Cardiocerebrovascular Centres. The patients were classified into self-recognised MI and unrecognised MI groups, and the differences between them were compared. Results: The rate of self-recognition among the patients with previous experience of MI was only 52.4%. Among the patients with re-MI, factors associated with self-recognition included recent first MI within 3 years, prior dyslipidaemia, two or more MI symptoms, and the male gender (p < 0.05). Factors associated with a lack of recognition were older age (≥70 years), prior stroke, and cancer history (p < 0.05). The proportion of symptoms-to-emergency room arrival time within 90 min among the patients with ST-elevation MI was significantly higher in the self-recognised group than in the unrecognised group (52.6% vs. 31.6%, p < 0.001). The self-recognised group showed a lower in-hospital mortality rate (1.5% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001), and this benefit was maintained even after 1 year (hazard ratio: 0.53; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Only half of the patients who previously experienced a MI recognised a re-MI when it occurred. This recognition reduced prehospital delay and led to higher survival rates, which highlights the importance of patient education as well as objective monitoring devices, irrespective of individual recognition ability for immediate response.

Jeong JH, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2027 Jan;42:e9. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2027.42.e9

It is a common challenge for pneumonic consolidation and pulmonary edema/congestion to be presented simultaneously on computed tomography. However, there is a lack of research on the clinical features and differential diagnosis of patients suspected of heart failure (HF) and pneumonia (PN). Among patients presenting with dyspnea, chest computed tomography was performed, and those with pneumonia and pulmonary edema interpreted by radiologists were included for analysis. PN, HF, or HF with PN (HFPN) were categorized by the pulmonologist and cardiologist. Clinical features, c-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and troponin I levels were collected. The study included 220 patients over 6 years, among whom 51.8% were ultimately confirmed as HFPN, with HF in 21.8% and PN in 26.4%. The HF group frequently exhibited cardiovascular risk factors, whereas the PN group showed no association with underlying pulmonary conditions. In multivariate analysis, independent biomarkers for HF diagnosis were NT-proBNP and CRP. The NT-proBNP was the only independent negative predictor for PN diagnosis. The combined model of CRP < 91 mg/dL and NT-proBNP > 2677 pg/mL were showed the highest diagnostic value (AUC 0.772, P = .033) for identifying HF. Both the HF-only and HFPN groups had high rates of antibiotic prescription, but this was not associated with in-hospital mortality. In this study, the combination of elevated NT-proBNP and low CRP levels appeared to provide better clinical utility in identifying HF over pneumonia among patients with overlapping radiologic features. However, further validation in diverse populations is warranted.

Background and Aims: Esophageal injury (EI) is a potentially serious complication of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data on its incidence and risk factors, particularly after radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA), remain limited. This study aimed to identify predictors of EI in patients undergoing RFCA and CBA. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with AF who underwent de novo RFCA or CBA between December 2019 and April 2022 were evaluated. All underwent EGD within 2 days post‐ablation. EI severity was graded, and clinical predictors were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. Results: Among 584 patients (mean age 62.8 ± 11.2 years, 68.6% male), 30 (5.1%) developed EI (RFCA: 5.0%, CBA: 6.3%). Most injuries were mild (Class I), and all resolved with proton pump inhibitor therapy. Compared with those without EI, affected patients had significantly lower body mass index (BMI) (24.5 ± 3.9 vs. 25.9 ± 3.4 kg/m ² , p = 0.030) and reduced ejection fraction (EF) (48.9% ± 8.7% vs. 52.8% ± 6.8%, p = 0.023). Multivariate analysis identified BMI ≤ 24 kg/m ² (odds ratio [OR], 3.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69–7.96) and EF ≤ 40% (OR, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.54–11.56) as independent risk factors. Conclusions: Esophageal injury after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is not rare, but usually mild. Lower BMI and reduced LVEF were independent risk factors, regardless of ablation type. These results support selective endoscopic screening in high‐risk patients to enable early detection and prevent severe complications.