Effect of rosuvastatin 20 mg versus rosuvastatin 5 mg plus ezetimibe on statin side-effects in elderly patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Rationale and design of a randomized, controlled SaveSAMS trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) use high-intensity statin therapy to lower low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol levels by at least 50%, irrespective of age. However, in real-world practice, there is reluctance to maintain statin use in response to side-effects, particularly statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS). Moreover, no randomized trial has been conducted on the safety of statin therapy in elderly patients. TRIAL DESIGN: This investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized clinical trial aimed to investigate the incidence of SAMS and its effect on LDL-cholesterol levels in elderly patients with established ASCVD. Eligible patients were aged 70 years or older with established ASCVD. Consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either intensive statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin 20 mg) or combination therapy (rosuvastatin/ezetimibe, 5/10 mg). The primary endpoint of the study is SAMS at 6 months with regard to treatment strategy. Positive SAMS results are defined as patients with a proposed statin myalgia index score of 7 or higher. The key secondary end-points are target LDL-cholesterol achievement (LDL < 70 mg/dL), incidence of myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, frequency of drug discontinuation, and creatinine kinase, aspartate transaminase, alanine transaminase, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglyceride, and highly sensitive C-reactive protein levels at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The SaveSAMS study is a multicenter, randomized trial that will compare the incidence of SAMS in patients with established ASCVD who are 70 years or older on intensive statin monotherapy to that combination therapy.

Intravascular Imaging and Angiography Guidance in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Patients With Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Data are limited regarding the effects of intravascular imaging guidance during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided vs angiography-guided complex PCI in patients with or without diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of a subgroup of patients in RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), an investigator-initiated, open-label multicenter trial, analyzed enrolled patients who underwent complex PCI at 20 sites in Korea from May 2018 through May 2021. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either the intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. Data analyses were performed from June 2023 to April 2024. Interventions: Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed either under the guidance of intravascular imaging or angiography alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Results: Among the 1639 patients included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [10.2] years; 1300 males [79.3%]), 617 (37.6%) had diabetes. The incidence of TVF was significantly higher in patients with diabetes than patients without diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.33-2.60; P < .001). Among patients without diabetes, the intravascular imaging-guided PCI group had a significantly lower incidence of TVF compared with the angiography-guided PCI group (4.7% vs 12.2%; HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.25-0.67]; P < .001). Conversely, in patients with diabetes, the risk of TVF was not significantly different between the 2 groups (12.9% vs 12.3%; HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.60-1.57]; P = .90). There was a significant interaction between the use of intravascular imaging and diabetes for the risk of TVF (P for interaction = .02). Among patients with diabetes, only those with good glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c level ≤7.5%) and who achieved stent optimization by intravascular imaging showed a lower risk of future ischemic events (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.82; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a subgroup of patients in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI trial, intravascular imaging guidance reduced the risk of TVF compared with angiography guidance in patients without diabetes (but not in patients with diabetes) during complex PCI. In patients with diabetes undergoing complex PCI, attention should be paid to stent optimization using intravascular imaging and glycemic control to improve outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

Clinical Benefit of Intravascular Imaging Compared With Conventional Angiography in Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) demonstrated that intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved clinical outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for patients with complex coronary artery lesions. This study aims to assess whether the prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging-guided procedural optimization persists in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: Of 1639 patients enrolled in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 192 patients with left main coronary artery disease were selected for the current prespecified substudy. Selected patients were randomly assigned to either the intravascular imaging-guided PCI group (n=138) or the angiography-guided PCI group (n=54). The primary end point was target vessel failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range 1.1 to 3.0 years), intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with lower incidence of primary end point compared with angiography-guided PCI (6.8% versus 25.1%; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.76]; P=0.010). This significant reduction in primary end point was mainly driven by a lower risk of cardiac death or spontaneous target vessel-related myocardial infarction (1.6% versus 12.7%; hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03-0.82]; P=0.028). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI was independently associated with a lower risk of primary end point, even after adjusting for various clinical factors (hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12-0.72]; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed clinical benefit over angiography-guided PCI for left main coronary artery disease in reducing the risk of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Angiographic outcomes of Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and Resolute Integrity durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents: results of the ORIENT trial.

AIMS: We performed a randomised controlled open-label non-inferiority trial to compare angiographic outcomes between the ultra-thin strut, biodegradable hybrid polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES) and the durable biocompatible polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 372 patients planned to undergo percutaneous coronary revascularisation were randomly assigned 2:1 to treatment with O-SES or R-ZES (250 and 122 patients, respectively). O-SES was non-inferior to R-ZES for the primary endpoint, in-stent late lumen loss at nine months (median 0.06 mm [interquartile range, -0.09 to 0.24 mm] versus 0.12 mm [-0.07 to 0.32 mm]; p for non-inferiority <0.001; p for superiority=0.205). Percent diameter stenosis was significantly lower in the O-SES group than in the R-ZES group (15.0 [10.0 to 20.0] versus 20.0 [13.3 to 26.0]; p=0.002). Target lesion failure occurred in 2.4% and 3.3% of the O-SES and R-ZES groups, respectively (p=0.621). Subgroup analyses showed consistently similar outcomes between the two groups in terms of the primary endpoint, except for the diabetic subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: O-SES was non-inferior to R-ZES in terms of in-stent late loss at nine months. Angiographic restenosis and clinical adverse events were low in both groups. This study confirms the good safety and efficacy profiles of both contemporary coronary stents.