Edoxaban Antithrombotic Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation and Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite consistent recommendations from clinical guidelines, data from randomized trials on a long-term antithrombotic treatment strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease are still lacking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, adjudicator-masked, randomized trial comparing edoxaban monotherapy with dual antithrombotic therapy (edoxaban plus a single antiplatelet agent) in patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease (defined as coronary artery disease previously treated with revascularization or managed medically). The risk of stroke was assessed on the basis of the CHA2DS2-VASc score (scores range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of stroke). The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, unplanned urgent revascularization, and major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included a composite of major ischemic events and the safety outcome of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: We assigned 524 patients to the edoxaban monotherapy group and 516 patients to the dual antithrombotic therapy group at 18 sites in South Korea. The mean age of the patients was 72.1 years, 22.9% were women, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.3. At 12 months, a primary-outcome event had occurred in 34 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 6.8%) assigned to edoxaban monotherapy and in 79 patients (16.2%) assigned to dual antithrombotic therapy (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.65; P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of major ischemic events at 12 months appeared to be similar in the trial groups. Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 23 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 4.7%) in the edoxaban monotherapy group and in 70 patients (14.2%) in the dual antithrombotic therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease, edoxaban monotherapy led to a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, unplanned urgent revascularization, or major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding at 12 months than dual antithrombotic therapy. (Funded by the CardioVascular Research Foundation and others; EPIC-CAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03718559.).

Preventive percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy alone for the treatment of vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaques (PREVENT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome and sudden cardiac death are often caused by rupture and thrombosis of lipid-rich atherosclerotic coronary plaques (known as vulnerable plaques), many of which are non-flow-limiting. The safety and effectiveness of focal preventive therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention of vulnerable plaques in reducing adverse cardiac events are unknown. We aimed to assess whether preventive percutaneous coronary intervention of non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques improves clinical outcomes compared with optimal medical therapy alone. METHODS: PREVENT was a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial done at 15 research hospitals in four countries (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and New Zealand). Patients aged 18 years or older with non-flow-limiting (fractional flow reserve >0·80) vulnerable coronary plaques identified by intracoronary imaging were randomly assigned (1:1) to either percutaneous coronary intervention plus optimal medical therapy or optimal medical therapy alone, in block sizes of 4 or 6, stratified by diabetes status and the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention in a non-study target vessel. Follow-up continued annually in all enrolled patients until the last enrolled patient reached 2 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable or progressive angina, assessed in the intention-to-treat population at 2 years. Time-to-first-event estimates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared with the log-rank test. This report is the principal analysis from the trial and includes all long-term analysed data. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02316886, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2015, and Sept 29, 2021, 5627 patients were screened for eligibility, 1606 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned to percutaneous coronary intervention (n=803) or optimal medical therapy alone (n=803). 1177 (73%) patients were men and 429 (27%) were women. 2-year follow-up for the primary outcome assessment was completed in 1556 (97%) patients (percutaneous coronary intervention group n=780; optimal medical therapy group n=776). At 2 years, the primary outcome occurred in three (0·4%) patients in the percutaneous coronary intervention group and in 27 (3·4%) patients in the medical therapy group (absolute difference -3·0 percentage points [95% CI -4·4 to -1·8]; p=0·0003). The effect of preventive percutaneous coronary intervention was directionally consistent for each component of the primary composite outcome. Serious clinical or adverse events did not differ between the percutaneous coronary intervention group and the medical therapy group: at 2 years, four (0·5%) versus ten (1·3%) patients died (absolute difference -0·8 percentage points [95% CI -1·7 to 0·2]) and nine (1·1%) versus 13 (1·7%) patients had myocardial infarction (absolute difference -0·5 percentage points [-1·7 to 0·6]). INTERPRETATION: In patients with non-flow-limiting vulnerable coronary plaques, preventive percutaneous coronary intervention reduced major adverse cardiac events arising from high-risk vulnerable plaques, compared with optimal medical therapy alone. Given that PREVENT is the first large trial to show the potential effect of the focal treatment for vulnerable plaques, these findings support consideration to expand indications for percutaneous coronary intervention to include non-flow-limiting, high-risk vulnerable plaques. FUNDING: The CardioVascular Research Foundation, Abbott, Yuhan Corp, CAH-Cordis, Philips, and Infraredx, a Nipro company.

Routine Functional Testing or Standard Care in High-Risk Patients after PCI.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data from randomized trials to guide a specific follow-up surveillance approach after myocardial revascularization. Whether a follow-up strategy that includes routine functional testing improves clinical outcomes among high-risk patients who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1706 patients with high-risk anatomical or clinical characteristics who had undergone PCI to a follow-up strategy of routine functional testing (nuclear stress testing, exercise electrocardiography, or stress echocardiography) at 1 year after PCI or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina at 2 years. Key secondary outcomes included invasive coronary angiography and repeat revascularization. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 64.7 years, 21.0% had left main disease, 43.5% had bifurcation disease, 69.8% had multivessel disease, 70.1% had diffuse long lesions, 38.7% had diabetes, and 96.4% had been treated with drug-eluting stents. At 2 years, a primary-outcome event had occurred in 46 of 849 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 5.5%) in the functional-testing group and in 51 of 857 (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 6.0%) in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 1.35; P = 0.62). There were no between-group differences with respect to the components of the primary outcome. At 2 years, 12.3% of the patients in the functional-testing group and 9.3% in the standard-care group had undergone invasive coronary angiography (difference, 2.99 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.01 to 5.99), and 8.1% and 5.8% of patients, respectively, had undergone repeat revascularization (difference, 2.23 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.22 to 4.68). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients who had undergone PCI, a follow-up strategy of routine functional testing, as compared with standard care alone, did not improve clinical outcomes at 2 years. (Funded by the CardioVascular Research Foundation and Daewoong Pharmaceutical; POST-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03217877.).

Routine stress testing in diabetic patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: the POST-PCI trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal follow-up surveillance strategy for high-risk diabetic patients with had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unknown. METHODS: The POST-PCI (Pragmatic Trial Comparing Symptom-Oriented versus Routine Stress Testing in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) study was a randomized trial comparing a follow-up strategy of routine functional testing at 1 year vs. standard care alone after high-risk PCI. Randomization was stratified according to diabetes status. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina at 2 years. RESULTS: Among 1706 randomized patients, participants with diabetes (n = 660, 38.7%) had more frequent comorbidities and a higher prevalence of complex anatomical or procedural characteristics than those without diabetes (n = 1046, 61.3%). Patients with diabetes had a 52% greater risk of primary composite events [hazard ratio (HR) 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-2.27; P = .039]. The 2-year incidences of the primary composite outcome were similar between strategies of routine functional testing or standard care alone in diabetic patients (7.1% vs. 7.5%; HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.53-1.66; P = .82) and non-diabetic patients (4.6% vs. 5.1%; HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.51-1.55; P = .68) (interaction term for diabetes: P = .91). The incidences of invasive coronary angiography and repeat revascularization after 1 year were higher in the routine functional-testing group than the standard-care group irrespective of diabetes status. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being at higher risk for adverse clinical events, patients with diabetes who had undergone high-risk PCI did not derive incremental benefit from routine surveillance stress testing compared with standard care alone during follow-up.

Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided or Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The OCTIVUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided PCI. However, the comparative effectiveness of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI regarding clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned 2008 patients with significant coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either an OCT-guided or IVUS-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year, which was powered for noninferiority of the OCT group compared with the IVUS group. Safety outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: At 1 year, primary end point events occurred in 25 of 1005 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 2.5%) in the OCT group and in 31 of 1003 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 3.1%) in the IVUS group (absolute difference, -0.6 percentage points; upper boundary of one-sided 97.5% CI, 0.97 percentage points; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was similar (14 patients [1.4%] in the OCT group versus 15 patients [1.5%] in the IVUS group; P=0.85). The incidence of major procedural complications was lower in the OCT group than in the IVUS group (22 [2.2%] versus 37 [3.7%]; P=0.047), although imaging procedure-related complications were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with significant coronary artery lesions, OCT-guided PCI was noninferior to IVUS-guided PCI with respect to the incidence of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. The selected study population and lower-than-expected event rates should be considered in interpreting the trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique number: NCT03394079.

Fully automated quantitative coronary angiography versus optical coherence tomography guidance for coronary stent implantation (FLASH): Study protocol for a randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence-based quantitative coronary angiography (AI-QCA) has been developed to provide a more objective and reproducible data about the severity of coronary artery stenosis and the dimensions of the vessel for intervention in real-time, overcoming the limitations of significant inter- and intraobserver variability, and time-consuming nature of on-site QCA, without requiring extra time and effort. Compared with the subjective nature of visually estimated conventional CAG guidance, AI-QCA guidance provides a more practical and standardized angiography-based approach. Although the advantage of intravascular imaging-guided PCI is increasingly recognized, their broader adoption is limited by clinical and economic barriers in many catheterization laboratories. METHODS: The FLASH (fully automated quantitative coronary angiography versus optical coherence tomography guidance for coronary stent implantation) trial is a randomized, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial comparing the AI-QCA-assisted PCI strategy with optical coherence tomography-guided PCI strategy in patients with significant coronary artery disease. All operators will utilize a novel, standardized AI-QCA software and PCI protocol in the AI-QCA-assisted group. A total of 400 patients will be randomized to either group at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is the minimal stent area (mm2), determined by the final OCT run after completion of PCI. Clinical follow-up and cost-effectiveness evaluations are planned at 1 month and 6 months for all patients enrolled in the study. RESULTS: Enrollment of a total of 400 patients from the 13 participating centers in South Korea will be completed in February 2024. Follow-up of the last enrolled patients will be completed in August 2024, and primary results will be available by late 2024. CONCLUSION: The FLASH is the first clinical trial to evaluate the feasibility of AI-QCA-assisted PCI, and will provide the clinical evidence on AI-QCA assistance in the field of coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT05388357.

Low- or standard-dose edoxaban versus antiplatelet therapy for leaflet thrombus and cerebral thromboembolism after TAVR: A prespecified analysis of randomized ADAPT-TAVR trial.

BACKGROUND: The risks of leaflet thrombosis and the associated cerebral thromboembolism are unknown according to different anticoagulation dosing after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The aim was to evaluate the incidence of leaflet thrombosis and cerebral thromboembolism between low-dose (30 mg) or standard-dose (60 mg) edoxaban and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after TAVR. METHODS: In this prespecified subgroup analysis of the ADAPT-TAVR trial, the primary endpoint was the incidence of leaflet thrombosis on 4-dimensional computed tomography at 6-months. Key secondary endpoints were new cerebral lesions on brain magnetic resonance imaging and neurological and neurocognitive dysfunction. RESULTS: Of 229 patients enrolled in this study, 118 patients were DAPT group and 111 were edoxaban group (43 [39.1%] 60 mg vs 68 [61.3%] 30 mg). There was a significantly lower incidence of leaflet thrombosis in the standard-dose edoxaban group than in the DAPT group (2.4% vs 18.3%; odds ratio [OR] 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.55; P = .03). However, no significant difference was observed between low-dose edoxaban and DAPT (15.0% vs 18.3%; OR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.32-1.81; P = .58). Irrespective of different antithrombotic regiments, the percentages of patients with new cerebral lesions on brain MRI and worsening neurological or neurocognitive function were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: In patients without an indication for anticoagulation after TAVR, the incidence of leaflet thrombosis was significantly lower with standard-dose edoxaban but not with low-dose edoxaban, as compared with DAPT. However, this differential effect of edoxaban on leaflet thrombosis was not associated with a reduction of new cerebral thromboembolism and neurological dysfunction.

Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Extended Follow-Up Outcomes of Multicenter Randomized Controlled BEST Trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term comparative outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are limited in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 27 international heart centers and was designed to randomly assign 1776 patients with angiographic multivessel coronary artery disease to receive PCI with everolimus-eluting stents or CABG. After inclusion of 880 patients (438 in the PCI group and 442 in the CABG group) between July 2008 and September 2013, the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment. The primary end point was the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 11.8 years (interquartile range, 10.6-12.5 years; maximum, 13.7 years), the primary end point occurred in 151 patients (34.5%) in the PCI group and 134 patients (30.3%) in the CABG group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.88-1.56]; P=0.26). No significant differences were seen in the occurrence of a safety composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between groups (28.8% and 27.1%; HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.75-1.53]; P=0.70), as well as the occurrence of death from any cause (20.5% and 19.9%; HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.65-1.67]; P=0.86). However, spontaneous myocardial infarction (7.1% and 3.8%; HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.06-3.27]; P=0.031) and any repeat revascularization (22.6% and 12.7%; HR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.58-2.32]; P<0.001) were more frequent after PCI than after CABG. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, there were no significant differences between PCI and CABG in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events, the safety composite end point, and all-cause mortality during the extended follow-up. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT05125367 and NCT00997828.

Edoxaban Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Leaflet Thrombosis and Cerebral Thromboembolism After TAVR: The ADAPT-TAVR Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the direct oral anticoagulant edoxaban can reduce leaflet thrombosis and the accompanying cerebral thromboembolic risk after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. In addition, the causal relationship of subclinical leaflet thrombosis with cerebral thromboembolism and neurological or neurocognitive dysfunction remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label randomized trial comparing edoxaban with dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel) in patients who had undergone successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement and did not have an indication for anticoagulation. The primary end point was an incidence of leaflet thrombosis on 4-dimensional computed tomography at 6 months. Key secondary end points were the number and volume of new cerebral lesions on brain magnetic resonance imaging and the serial changes of neurological and neurocognitive function between 6 months and immediately after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. RESULTS: A total of 229 patients were included in the final intention-to-treat population. There was a trend toward a lower incidence of leaflet thrombosis in the edoxaban group compared with the dual antiplatelet therapy group (9.8% versus 18.4%; absolute difference, -8.5% [95% CI, -17.8% to 0.8%]; P=0.076). The percentage of patients with new cerebral lesions on brain magnetic resonance imaging (edoxaban versus dual antiplatelet therapy, 25.0% versus 20.2%; difference, 4.8%; 95% CI, -6.4% to 16.0%) and median total new lesion number and volume were not different between the 2 groups. In addition, the percentages of patients with worsening of neurological and neurocognitive function were not different between the groups. The incidence of any or major bleeding events was not different between the 2 groups. We found no significant association between the presence or extent of leaflet thrombosis with new cerebral lesions and a change of neurological or neurocognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: In patients without an indication for long-term anticoagulation after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the incidence of leaflet thrombosis was numerically lower with edoxaban than with dual antiplatelet therapy, but this was not statistically significant. The effects on new cerebral thromboembolism and neurological or neurocognitive function were also not different between the 2 groups. Because the study was underpowered, the results should be considered hypothesis generating, highlighting the need for further research. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT03284827.

Preventive PCI or medical therapy alone for vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaque: Rationale and design of the randomized, controlled PREVENT trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes are commonly caused by the rupture of vulnerable plaque, which often appear angiographically not severe. Although pharmacologic management is considered standard therapy for stabilizing plaque vulnerability, the potential role of preventive local treatment for vulnerable plaque has not yet been determined. The PREVENT trial was designed to compare preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) with OMT alone in patients with functionally nonsignificant high-risk vulnerable plaques. METHODS: The PREVENT trial is a multinational, multicenter, prospective, open-label, active-treatment-controlled randomized trial. Eligible patients have at least 1 angiographically significant stenosis (diameter stenosis >50% by visual estimation) without functional significance (fractional flow reserve [FFR] >0.80). Target lesions are assessed by intracoronary imaging and must meet at least 2 imaging criteria for vulnerable plaque; (1) minimal lumen area <4.0 mm2; (2) plaque burden >70%; (3) maximal lipid core burden index in a 4 mm segment >315 by near infrared spectroscopy; and (4) thin cap fibroatheroma as determined by virtual histology or optical coherence tomography. Enrolled patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either preventive PCI with either bioabsorbable vascular scaffolds or metallic everolimus-eluting stents plus OMT or OMT alone. The primary endpoint is target-vessel failure, defined as the composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischemic-driven target-vessel revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable or progressive angina, at 2 years after randomization. RESULTS: Enrollment of a total of 1,608 patients has been completed. Follow-up of the last enrolled patient will be completed in September 2023 and primary results are expected to be available in early 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The PREVENT trial is the first large-scale, randomized trial to evaluate the effect of preventive PCI on non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques containing multiple high-risk features that is appropriately powered for clinical outcomes. PREVENT will provide compelling evidence as to whether preventive PCI of vulnerable plaques plus OMT improves patient outcomes compared with OMT alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT02316886. KEY POINTS: The PREVENT trial is the first, large-scale randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of preventive PCI on non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaque with high-risk features. It will provide compelling evidence to determine whether PCI of focal vulnerable plaques on top of OMT improves patient outcomes.

Impact of new-onset arrhythmia on cardiac reverse remodeling following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: computed tomography-derived left ventricular and atrial strains.

OBJECTIVE: Patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are at risk for new-onset arrhythmia (NOA) that may require permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, resulting in decreased cardiac function. We aimed to investigate the factors that are associated with NOA after TAVR and to compare pre- and post-TAVR cardiac functions between patients with and without NOA using CT-derived strain analyses. METHODS: We included consecutive patients who underwent pre- and post-TAVR cardiac CT scans six months after TAVR. New-onset left bundle branch block, atrioventricular block, and atrial fibrillation/flutter lasting over 30 days after the procedure and/or the need for PPM diagnosed within 1 year after TAVR were regarded as NOA. Implant depth and left heart function and strains were analyzed using multi-phase CT images and compared between patients with and without NOA. RESULTS: Of 211 patients (41.7% men; median 81 years), 52 (24.6%) presented with NOA after TAVR, and 24 (11.4%) implanted PPM. Implant depth was significantly deeper in the NOA group than in the non-NOA group (- 6.7 ± 2.4 vs. - 5.6 ± 2.6 mm; p = 0.009). Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) and left atrial (LA) reservoir strain were significantly improved only in the non-NOA group (LV GLS, - 15.5 ± 4.0 to - 17.3 ± 2.9%; p < 0.001; LA reservoir strain, 22.3 ± 8.9 to 26.5 ± 7.6%; p < 0.001). The mean percent change of the LV GLS and LA reservoir strains was evident in the non-NOA group (p = 0.019 and p = 0.035, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A quarter of patients presented with NOA after TAVR. Deep implant depth on post-TAVR CT scans was associated with NOA. Patients with NOA after TAVR had impaired LV reserve remodeling assessed by CT-derived strains. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: New-onset arrhythmia (NOA) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) impairs cardiac reverse remodeling. CT-derived strain analysis reveals that patients with NOA do not show improvement in left heart function and strains, highlighting the importance of managing NOA for optimal outcomes. KEY POINTS: • New-onset arrhythmia following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a concern that interferes with cardiac reverse remodeling. • Comparison of pre-and post-TAVR CT-derived left heart strain provides insight into the impaired cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with new-onset arrhythmia following TAVR. • The expected reverse remodeling was not observed in patients with new-onset arrhythmia following TAVR, given that CT-derived left heart function and strains did not improve.

Edoxaban-based long-term antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary disease: Rationale and design of the randomized EPIC-CAD trial.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulants are the standard therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and antiplatelet therapy for those with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, compelling clinical evidence is still lacking regarding the long-term maintenance strategy with the combination of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs in patients with AF and stable CAD. DESIGN: The EPIC-CAD trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label randomized trial comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 antithrombotic strategies in patients with high-risk AF (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2 points) and stable CAD (≥6 months after revascularization for stable angina or ≥12 months for acute coronary syndrome; or medical therapy alone). Patients (approximately N = 1,038) will be randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to (1) monotherapy with edoxaban (a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant) or (2) combination therapy with edoxaban plus a single antiplatelet agent. The primary endpoint is the net composite outcome of death from any cause, stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization, and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding at 1 year after randomization. RESULTS: As of December 2021, approximately 901 patients had been randomly enrolled over 2 years at 18 major cardiac centers across South Korea. The completed enrollment is expected at the mid-term of 2022, and the primary results will be available by 2023. CONCLUSIONS: EPIC-CAD is a large-scale, multicenter, pragmatic design trial, which will provide valuable clinical insight into edoxaban-based long-term antithrombotic therapy in patients with high-risk AF and stable CAD.

Ten-Year Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Disease: Extended Follow-Up of the PRECOMBAT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term comparative outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents and coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease are highly debated. METHODS: In the PRECOMBAT trial (Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease), patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo PCI with sirolimus-eluting stents (n=300) or CABG (n=300) in 13 hospitals in Korea from April 2004 to August 2009. The follow-up was extended to at least 10 years for all patients (median, 11.3 years). The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization). RESULTS: At 10 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 29.8% of the PCI group and in 24.7% of the CABG group (hazard ratio [HR] with PCI vs CABG, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.93-1.69]). The 10-year incidence of the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (18.2% vs 17.5%; HR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.70-1.44]) and all-cause mortality (14.5% vs 13.8%; HR 1.13 [95% CI, 0.75-1.70]) were not significantly different between the PCI and CABG groups. Ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization was more frequent after PCI than after CABG (16.1% vs 8.0%; HR 1.98 [95% CI, 1.21-3.21). CONCLUSIONS: Ten-year follow-up of the PRECOMBAT trial of patients with left main coronary artery disease randomized to PCI or CABG did not demonstrate significant difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events. Because the study was underpowered, the results should be considered hypothesis-generating, highlighting the need for further research. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03871127 and NCT00422968.

Ten-year outcomes of early generation sirolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with left main coronary artery disease.

To compare 10-year outcomes after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. Very long-term outcome data of patients with LMCA disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) have not been well described. In 10-year extended follow-up of the MAINCOMPARE registry, we evaluated 778 patients with unprotected LMCA stenosis who were treated with SES (n = 607) or PES (n = 171) between January 2000 and June 2006. The primary composite outcome (a composite of death, myocardial infarction [MI] or target-vessel revascularization [TVR]) was compared with an inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting (IPTW) adjustment. Clinical events have linearly accumulated over 10 years. At 10 years, there were no significant differences between SES and PES in the observed rates of the primary composite outcome (42.0% vs. 47.4%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-1.10), and definite stent thrombosis (ST) (1.9% vs. 1.8%; HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.28-3.64). In the IPTW-adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences between SES and PES in the risks for the primary composite outcome (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65-1.14) or definite ST (adjusted HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29-3.90). In patients who underwent DES implantation, high overall adverse clinical event rates (with a linearly increasing event rate over time) were observed during extended follow-up. At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with SES vs. PES for LMCA disease. The incidence of stent thrombosis was quite low and comparable between the groups.

Comparison of simple versus complex stenting in patients with true distal left main bifurcation lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Distal left main (LM) bifurcation disease is one of the most challenging lesion subsets for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and optimal stenting strategy for such complex lesions is still debated. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes following single versus dual stenting for true distal LM bifurcation lesions. METHODS: Patients with true distal LM bifurcation lesions (type 1,1,1 or 0,1,1: both left anterior descending and circumflex artery >2.5 mm diameter) receiving PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) from two large clinical registries were evaluated. The primary outcome was target-lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target-lesion revascularization (TLR). Outcomes were compared with the use of propensity scores and inverse probability-weighting adjustment to reduce treatment selection bias. RESULTS: Among 1,002 patients undergoing true distal LM PCI, 440 (43.9%) and 562 (56.1%) were treated with single and dual stents, respectively. The TLF rates at 3 year was 20.3% in the single-stent group and 24.1% in the dual-stenting group (log-rank p = 0.18). The adjusted risk for TLF did not differ significantly between two groups (hazard ratio [HR] with dual-stent vs. single-stent: 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.71). The adjusted risks for death, MI, repeat revascularization, or stent thrombosis were also similar between the single- and dual-stenting groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI for true distal LM disease, single- and dual-stent strategies showed a similar adjusted risk of TLF at 3 years. Our findings should be confirmed or refuted through large, randomized clinical trials.

Clinically Significant Bleeding With Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Korean Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Intended for Invasive Management: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Owing to the differential propensity for bleeding and ischemic events with response to antiplatelet therapy, the safety and effectiveness of potent P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor in East Asian populations remain uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, 800 Korean patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndromes with or without ST elevation and intended for invasive management were randomly assigned to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) or clopidogrel (600 mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter). The primary safety outcome was clinically significant bleeding (a composite of major bleeding or minor bleeding according to PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) criteria at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the incidence of clinically significant bleeding was significantly higher in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (11.7% [45/400] vs 5.3% [21/400]; hazard ratio [HR], 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 3.79; P=0.002). The incidences of major bleeding (7.5% [29/400] vs 4.1% [16/400], P=0.04) and fatal bleeding (1% [4/400] vs 0%, P=0.04) were also higher in the ticagrelor group. The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke was not significantly different between the ticagrelor group and the clopidogrel group (9.2% [36/400] vs 5.8% [23/400]; HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.74; P=0.07). Overall safety and effectiveness findings were similar with the use of several different analytic methods and in multiple subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In Korean acute coronary syndrome patients intended to receive early invasive management, standard-dose ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel was associated with a higher incidence of clinically significant bleeding. The numerically higher incidence of ischemic events should be interpreted with caution, given the present trial was underpowered to draw any conclusion regarding efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02094963.

Comparison of optical coherence tomography-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale and design of a randomized, controlled OCTIVUS trial.

BACKGROUND: The clinical value of intracoronary imaging for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guidance is well acknowledged. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) are the most commonly used intravascular imaging to guide and optimize PCI in day-to-day practice. However, the comparative effectiveness of IVUS-guided versus OCT-guided PCI with respect to clinical end points remains unknown. METHODS AND DESIGN: The OCTIVUS study is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of 2 imaging-guided strategies in patients with stable angina or acute coronary syndromes undergoing PCI in Korea. A total of 2,000 patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either an OCT-guided PCI strategy or an IVUS-guided PCI strategy. The trial uses a pragmatic comparative effectiveness design with inclusion criteria designed to capture a broad range of real-world patients with diverse clinical and anatomical features. PCI optimization criteria are predefined using a common algorithm for online OCT or IVUS. The primary end point, which was tested for both noninferiority (margin, 3.1 percentage points for the risk difference) and superiority, is target-vessel failure (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization) at 1 year. RESULTS: Up to the end of July 2020, approximately 1,200 "real-world" PCI patients have been randomly enrolled over 2 years. Enrollment is expected to be completed around the midterm of 2021, and primary results will be available by late 2022 or early 2023. CONCLUSION: This large-scale, multicenter, pragmatic-design clinical trial will provide valuable clinical evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of OCT-guided versus IVUS-guided PCI strategies in a broad population of patients undergoing PCI in the daily clinical practice.

Pragmatic trial comparing routine versus no routine functional testing in high-risk patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention: Rationale and design of POST-PCI trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the need to detect restenosis has diminished in the contemporary practice of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), the surveillance of ischemia owing to restenosis or disease progression deserves attention in high-risk PCI settings. It is unknown whether follow-up strategy of routine noninvasive functional testing potentially reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events in high-risk PCI patients. METHODS: The POST-PCI study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of two follow-up strategies in patients with high-risk anatomic or clinical characteristics who underwent PCI. Study participants were randomly assigned to either (1) the routine noninvasive stress testing (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress imaging, or stress echocardiography) at 12 months post-PCI or (2) the standard-care without routine testing. In the routine stress testing group, depending on the testing results, all clinical decisions regarding subsequent diagnostic or therapeutic procedures were at the treating physician's discretion. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of death from any causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina at 2 years post-PCI. RESULTS: More than 1700 high-risk PCI patients have been randomized over 2.0 years at 11 major cardiac centers in Korea. CONCLUSION: This pragmatic POST-PCI trial will provide valuable clinical evidence on the effectiveness of follow-up strategy of routine noninvasive stress testing in high-risk PCI patients.

Long-term (10-year) outcomes of stenting or bypass surgery for acute coronary syndromes and stable ischemic heart disease with unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Acuity of clinical presentation may influence decision making of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. However, it is undetermined whether clinical indication for myocardial revascularization may affect the relative long-term effect after PCI and CABG. METHODS: In the MAIN-COMPARE study including 2,240 patients with LMCA disease treated with PCI (n = 1102) or CABG (n = 1138), we examined interaction between acuity of clinical presentation (acute coronary syndromes [ACS] or non-ACS) and revascularization strategy on 10-year outcomes. Primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: In overall patients, 1,603 patients (71.6%) presented with ACS and 637 patients (28.4%) presented with non-ACS. The 10-year adjusted risks for primary composite outcome were similar after PCI and CABG among patients who presented with non-ACS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07; 95% CI 0.71-1.61) and those who presented with ACS (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.81-1.24) (P for interaction = .29). The adjusted risks of death were also similar between 2 groups in non-ACS (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.63-1.51) and ACS (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.81-1.28) patients (P for interaction = .62). The adjusted risks of target vessel revascularization were consistently higher after PCI in non-ACS (HR 6.38; 95% CI 3.14-12.96) and ACS (HR 3.96; 95% CI 2.80-5.60) patients (P for interaction = .39). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LMCA disease, we have identified no significant interaction between the acuity of clinical indication and the relative treatment effect of PCI versus CABG on 10-year clinical outcomes.