Seasonal variation and prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Background: Little is known about the association between seasonal variation and prognosis in patients with CS caused by AMI. Objectives: We investigated the 12-month clinical outcomes in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) according to season. Methods: A total of 695 patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by CS was enrolled from 12 centers in South Korea. The study patients were divided into four groups according to season in which the AMI with CS occurred (spring, n = 178 vs. summer, n = 155 vs. autumn, n = 182 vs. winter, n = 180). We compared major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, re-hospitalization due to heart failure, and any revascularization) between the four groups. Results: The risk of MACE during the 12 months after CS was similar in the four groups: spring, 68 patients, vs. summer, 69, vs. autumn, 73, vs. winter, 68 (p = 0.587). Multivariate Cox-regression analysis revealed no significant difference in 12-month MACE among groups compared to the spring group after inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment (summer, HR 1.40, 95 % CI 0.98-1.99, p = 0.062; autumn, HR 1.26, 95 % CI 0.89-1.80, p = 0.193; winter, HR 1.18, 95 % CI 0.83-1.67, p = 0.356). The similarity of MACE between the four groups was consistent across a variety of subgroups. Conclusions: After adjusting for baseline differences, seasonal variation seems not to influence the mid-term risk of 12-month MACE in patients treated with PCI for AMI complicated by CS. Condensed abstract: Data are limited regarding the association between seasonal variation and prognosis in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by AMI. This study divided patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by CS into four groups based on the season of occurrence and found no significant differences in 12-month MACE between the groups after adjusting for bias and confounding factors. Multivariate analysis revealed consistent MACE similarity across subgroups. The study suggests that seasonal variation has no impact on the mid-term risk of 12-month MACE in patients with CS caused by AMI, after adjusting for baseline differences. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02985008RESCUE (REtrospective and prospective observational Study to investigate Clinical oUtcomes and Efficacy of left ventricular assist device for Korean patients with cardiogenic shock), NCT02985008, Registered December 5, 2016 - retrospectively and prospectively. Irb information: This study was approved by the institutional review board of Samsung Medical Center (Reference number: 2016-03-130).

Ticagrelor monotherapy for acute coronary syndrome: an individual patient data meta-analysis of TICO and T-PASS trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is recommended for 12 months after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. Monotherapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor after short-term DAPT is an attractive option to better balance the risks of ischaemia and bleeding. Therefore, this study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term DAPT, especially in patients with ACS. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception to 11 November 2023, and for the primary analysis, individual patient data were pooled from the relevant randomized clinical trials comparing ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term (≤3 months) DAPT with ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT, exclusively in ACS patients undergoing DES implantation. The co-primary endpoints were ischaemic endpoint (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and bleeding endpoint [Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding] at 1 year. RESULTS: Individual patient data from two randomized clinical trials including 5906 ACS patients were analysed. At 1 year, the primary ischaemic endpoint did not differ between the ticagrelor monotherapy and ticagrelor-based DAPT groups [1.9% vs. 2.5%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-1.13; P = .194]. The incidence of the primary bleeding endpoint was lower in the ticagrelor monotherapy group (2.4% vs. 4.5%; adjusted HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.40-0.72; P < .001). The results were consistent in a secondary aggregate data meta-analysis including the ACS subgroup of additional randomized clinical trials which enrolled patients with ACS as well as chronic coronary syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients undergoing DES implantation, ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term DAPT was associated with less major bleeding without a concomitant increase in ischaemic events compared with ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023476470).

Clinical Significance of Residual Ischemia in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing VA-ECMO.

BACKGROUND: Although culprit-only revascularization during the index procedure has been recommended in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS), the reduction of residual ischemia is also emphasized to improve clinical outcomes. However, few data are available about the significance of residual ischemia in patients undergoing mechanical circulatory supports. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of residual ischemia on clinical outcomes in AMI patients undergoing venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). METHODS: AMI patients with multivessel disease who underwent VA-ECMO due to refractory CS were pooled from the RESCUE and SMC-ECMO registries. The included patients were classified into three groups according to residual ischemia evaluated using the residual SYNTAX score (rSS): rSS = 0, 0 < rSS ≤ 8, and rSS > 8. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause death. RESULTS: A total of 408 patients were classified into the rSS = 0 (N = 100, 24.5%), 0 < rSS ≤ 8 (N = 136, 33.3%), and rSS > 8 (N = 172, 42.2%) groups. The cumulative incidence of the primary outcome differed significantly according to rSS (33.9% vs. 55.4% vs. 66.1% for rSS = 0, 0 < rSS ≤ 8, and rSS > 8, respectively, overall P < 0.001). In a multivariable model, rSS was independently associated with the risk of 1-year all-cause death (HRadj 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, P = 0.003). Conversely, the baseline SYNTAX score was not associated with the risk of the primary outcome. Furthermore, when patients were stratified by rSS, the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the high and low delta SYNTAX score groups. CONCLUSIONS: In AMI patients with refractory CS who underwent VA-ECMO, residual ischemia was associated with an increased risk of 1-year mortality. Future studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of revascularization strategies to minimize residual ischemia in patients with CS supported with VA ECMO. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: REtrospective and Prospective Observational Study to Investigate Clinical oUtcomes and Efficacy of Left Ventricular Assist Device for Korean Patients With Cardiogenic Shock (RESCUE), NCT02985008.

Clinical Outcomes After Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment in Popliteal Artery Disease: K-POP Registry 12-Month Results.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The popliteal artery is generally regarded as a "no-stent zone". Limited data are available on the outcomes of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) for popliteal artery disease. This study aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes among patients who received DCB treatment for atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter registry study enrolled 100 patients from 7 Korean endovascular centers who underwent endovascular therapy using IN.PACT DCB (Medtronic) for symptomatic atherosclerotic popliteal artery disease. The primary endpoint was 12-month clinical primary patency and the secondary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR)-free rate. RESULTS: The mean age of the study cohort was 65.7±10.8 years, and 77% of enrolled patients were men. The mean lesion length was 93.7±53.7 mm, and total occlusions were present in 45% of patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Combined atherectomy was performed in 17% and provisional stenting was required in 11%. Out of the enrolled patients, 91 patients completed the 12-month follow-up. Clinical primary patency and TLR-free survival rates at 12 months were 76.0% and 87.2%, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified female and longer lesion length as the significant independent predictors of loss of patency. CONCLUSIONS: DCB treatment yielded favorable 12-month clinical primary patency and TLR-free survival outcomes in patients with popliteal artery disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02698345.

Predictive value of plaque characteristics for identification of lesions causing ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Functional assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) and anatomical assessment using optical coherence tomography (OCT) are used in clinical practice for patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. Moreover, coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a common noninvasive imaging technique for evaluating suspected coronary artery disease before being referred for angiography. This study aimed to investigate the association between FFR and plaque characteristics assessed using coronary CTA and OCT for intermediate coronary stenosis. METHODS: Based on a prospective multicenter registry, 159 patients having 339 coronary lesions with intermediate stenosis were included. All patients underwent coronary CTA before being referred for coronary angiography, and both FFR measurements and OCT examinations were performed during angiography. A stenotic lesion identified with FFR ≤0.80 was deemed diagnostic of an ischemia-causing lesion. The predictive value of plaque characteristics assessed using coronary CTA and OCT for identifying lesions causing ischemia was analyzed. RESULTS: Stenosis severity and plaque characteristics on coronary CTA and OCT differed between lesions that caused ischemia and those that did not. In multivariate analysis, low attenuation plaque on coronary CTA (odds ratio [OR]=2.78; P=0.038), thrombus (OR=5.13; P=0.042), plaque rupture (OR=3.25; P=0.017), and intimal vasculature on OCT (OR=2.57; P=0.012) were independent predictors of ischemic lesions. Increasing the number of these plaque characteristics offered incremental improvement in predicting the lesions causing ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive anatomical evaluation of coronary stenosis may provide additional supportive information for predicting the lesions causing ischemia.

Efficacy and safety of durable versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

The clinical impact of different polymer technologies in newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains poorly understood. We investigated the efficacy and safety of durable polymer DESs (DP-DESs) compared with biodegradable polymer DESs (BP-DESs). A total of 620 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with newer-generation DESs for AMI complicated by CS was divided into two groups based on polymer technology: the DP-DES group (n = 374) and the BP-DES group (n = 246). The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) during a 12-month follow-up, defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Both the DP-DES and BP-DES groups exhibited low stent thrombosis rates (1.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.660). The risk of TVF did not significantly differ between the two groups (34.2% vs. 28.5%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.29, p = 0.721). This finding remained consistent after adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (28.1% vs. 25.1%, HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77-1.27, p = 0.899). In AMI patients complicated by CS, the risk of a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization was not significantly different between those treated with DP-DESs and those treated with BP-DESs.Trial registration: RESCUE registry, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02985008 , NCT02985008.

Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality for Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcome of ischemic cardiogenic shock (CS) requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is highly variable, necessitating appropriate assessment of prognosis. However, a systemic predictive model estimating the mortality of refractory ischemic CS is lacking. The PRECISE (Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality for Patients With Refractory Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support) score was developed to predict the prognosis of refractory ischemic CS due to acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were obtained from the multicenter CS registry RESCUE (Retrospective and Prospective Observational Study to Investigate Clinical Outcomes and Efficacy of Left Ventricular Assist Device for Korean Patients With Cardiogenic Shock) that consists of 322 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by refractory ischemic CS requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Fifteen parameters were selected to assess in-hospital mortality. The developed model was validated internally and externally using an independent external cohort (n=138). Among 322 patients, 138 (42.9%) survived postdischarge. Fifteen predictors were included for model development: age, diastolic blood pressure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, peak lactic acid, serum creatinine, lowest left ventricular ejection fraction, vasoactive inotropic score, shock to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation insertion time, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, use of intra-aortic balloon pump, continuous renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilator, successful coronary revascularization, and staged percutaneous coronary intervention. The PRECISE score yielded a high area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (0.894 [95% CI, 0.860-0.927]). External validation and calibration resulted in competent sensitivity (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.895 [95% CI, 0.853-0.930]). CONCLUSIONS: The PRECISE score demonstrated high predictive performance and directly translates into the expected in-hospital mortality rate. The PRECISE score may be used to support clinical decision-making in ischemic CS (www.theprecisescore.com). REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02985008.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair Within and Outside the Instructions for Use in Korean Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been used worldwide to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Outcomes after EVAR within and outside the instruction for use (IFU) remain controversial. We analyzed long-term outcomes of EVAR within-the-IFU compared with that outside-the-IFU and baseline clinical/anatomical characteristics that influence outcomes of EVAR. METHODS: The study included 546 patients who underwent EVAR for infrarenal AAA from 1997 to 2021 at 2 Korean medical centers. The primary endpoint was graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including type 1 or 3 endoleak, reintervention (included open conversion), aneurysm sac enlargement, aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), rupture, stent-graft migration, and stent thrombotic occlusion. RESULTS: The patients who underwent EVAR outside the IFU were 287 (52.6%). A neck angle of >60° was most common outside the IFU criteria (n=146, 50.9%). This study revealed that patients outside the IFU had a higher rate of GRAEs compared with patients within the IFU (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.879; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.045-2.386). A neck angle of >60° was a significant risk factor for GRAEs (adjusted HR: 2.229; 95% CI: 1.418-3.503), type 1 or 3 endoleak (adjusted HR: 2.640; 95% CI: 1.343-5.189), and reintervention (adjusted HR: 1.891; 95% CI: 1.055-3.388). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed EVAR with outside the IFU was associated with increased GRAEs, mainly attributed to endoleak and ARM, compared with EVAR with within the IFU. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak, and reintervention. CLINICAL IMPACT: Our study revealed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with outside-the-instruction for use (IFU) was associated with increased graft-related adverse events (GRAEs) compared with EVAR with within-the-IFU. In the low-risk population, the incidence of GRAEs and Aneurysm related mortality were higher in the outside-the-IFU group rather than within-the-IFU group. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak and reintervention.

Moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with metabolic syndrome and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A post-hoc analysis of the RACING trial.

AIM: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this post-hoc subgroup analysis of the RACING trial, patients were analysed based on the presence of MetS. MetS was defined as meeting at least three of the five following criteria: (a) elevated waist circumference; (b) elevated triglycerides; (c) reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; (d) elevated blood pressure; and (e) elevated fasting glucose. The primary outcome was a 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or non-fatal stroke. RESULTS: Of the 3780 patients enrolled in the RACING trial, 1703 (45.1%) had MetS at baseline. The primary outcome rate was 10.1% and 10.3% in patients with MetS receiving ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy (hazard ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval = 0.72-1.32; p = .868). Lower rates of intolerance-related drug discontinuation or dose reduction (3.9% vs. 8.0%; p < .001) and lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (57 vs. 65 mg/dl; p < .001) were observed with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy. Furthermore, the rate of new-onset diabetes was 18.5% and 19.1% in each group (p = .822). There were no significant interactions between MetS and therapy regarding study outcomes in the total population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MetS and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy had comparable cardiovascular benefits with those of high-intensity statin monotherapy. Meanwhile, ezetimibe combination therapy was associated with lower drug intolerance and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, but there was no apparent between-group difference in new-onset diabetes.

Stopping Aspirin Within 1 Month After Stenting for Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome: The T-PASS Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Stopping aspirin within 1 month after implantation of a drug-eluting stent for ticagrelor monotherapy has not been exclusively evaluated for patients with acute coronary syndrome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ticagrelor monotherapy after <1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is noninferior to 12 months of ticagrelor-based DAPT for adverse cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, 2850 patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent drug-eluting stent implantation at 24 centers in South Korea were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice daily) after <1 month of DAPT (n=1426) or 12 months of ticagrelor-based DAPT (n=1424) between April 24, 2019, and May 31, 2022. The primary end point was the net clinical benefit as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding at 1 year after the index procedure in the intention-to-treat population. Key secondary end points were the individual components of the primary end point. RESULTS: Among 2850 patients who were randomized (mean age, 61 years; 40% ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction), 2823 (99.0%) completed the trial. Aspirin was discontinued at a median of 16 days (interquartile range, 12-25 days) in the group receiving ticagrelor monotherapy after <1 month of DAPT. The primary end point occurred in 40 patients (2.8%) in the group receiving ticagrelor monotherapy after <1-month DAPT, and in 73 patients (5.2%) in the ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.37-0.80]; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.002 for superiority). This finding was consistent in the per-protocol population as a sensitivity analysis. The occurrence of major bleeding was significantly lower in the ticagrelor monotherapy after <1-month DAPT group compared with the 12-month DAPT group (1.2% versus 3.4%; hazard ratio, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.20-0.61]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that stopping aspirin within 1 month for ticagrelor monotherapy is both noninferior and superior to 12-month DAPT for the 1-year composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding, primarily because of a significant reduction in major bleeding, among patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving drug-eluting stent implantation. Low event rates, which may suggest enrollment of relatively non-high-risk patients, should be considered in interpreting the trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03797651.

Comparison of Intracardiac Echocardiography Versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for Guidance During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) for guidance during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is limited. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of ICE versus transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for guiding TAVR. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included patients who underwent TAVR from August 18, 2015, to June 31, 2021. Eligible patients were stratified by echocardiographic modality (ICE or TEE) and anesthesia mode (monitored anesthesia care [MAC] or general anesthesia [GA]). Primary outcome was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for cardiovascular cause, or stroke, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) definition. Propensity score matching was performed, and study outcomes were analyzed for the matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 359 eligible patients, 120 patients were matched for the ICE-MAC and TEE-GA groups, respectively. The incidence of primary outcome was similar between matched groups (18.3% vs. 20.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.68; p=0.843). ICE-MAC and TEE-GA also had similar incidences of moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (4.2% vs. 5.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.23-2.82; p=0.758), new permanent pacemaker implantation, and VARC-3 types 2-4 bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: ICE was comparable to TEE for guidance during TAVR for the composite clinical efficacy outcome, with similar incidences of moderate-to-severe PVR, new permanent pacemaker implantation, and major bleeding. These results suggest that ICE could be a safe and effective alternative echocardiographic modality to TEE for guiding TAVR.

Prognostic effect of sex according to shock severity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Sex disparities in cardiogenic shock (CS) treatment are controversial, and the prognostic implications of sex remain unclear in CS caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic effect of sex according to the severity of CS in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI complicated by CS. METHODS: We assessed 695 patients from 12 tertiary centers in South Korea who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by CS, and analyzed outcomes by sex (female [n = 184] vs. male [n = 511]). We compared a 12-month patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, re-hospitalization due to heart failure, and repeat revascularization) between the sexes, respective of SCAI shock stage C&D or E. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce bias. RESULTS: We found that the female group was older and had higher vasoactive-inotropic and IABP-SHOCK II scores than the male group, with findings consistent across SCAI shock stages. During the 12-month follow-up period, multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences in POCE (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67-1.53, p = 0.963 for SCAI stage C&D, HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.84-1.84, p = 0.286 for SCAI stage E) between females and males. After propensity score matching, the incidence of POCE (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.79-2.72, p = 0.220 for SCAI stage C&D, HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.49-1.57, p = 0.665 for SCAI stage E) was similar between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Sex does not appear to influence the risk of 12-month POCE in patients treated with PCI for CS caused by AMI, irrespective of shock severity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02985008. RESCUE (REtrospective and prospective observational Study to investigate Clinical oUtcomes and Efficacy of left ventricular assist device for Korean patients with cardiogenic shock), NCT02985008, Registered December 5, 2016 - retrospectively and prospectively. IRB INFORMATION: This study was approved by the institutional review board of Samsung Medical Center (Reference number: 2016-03-130).

Combination therapy with moderate-intensity atorvastatin and ezetimibe versus high-intensity atorvastatin monotherapy in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in practice: assessing RACING generalizability.

AIMS: Using rosuvastatin, the RACING (randomized comparison of efficacy and safety of lipid-lowering with statin monotherapy versus statin/ezetimibe combination for high-risk cardiovascular diseases) trial showed the beneficial effects of combining moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This study investigated whether the beneficial effects of combination lipid-lowering therapy extend to patients treated with atorvastatin, not rosuvastatin, in daily clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, a total of 31 993 patients who were prescribed atorvastatin after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation were identified from a nationwide cohort database: 6 215 patients with atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (combination lipid-lowering therapy) and 25 778 patients with atorvastatin 40-80 mg monotherapy. The primary endpoint was the 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure treatment, or non-fatal stroke in accordance with the RACING trial design. Combination lipid-lowering therapy was associated with a lower incidence of the primary endpoint (12.9% vs. 15.1% in high-intensity atorvastatin monotherapy; hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.88, p < 0.001). Compared with high-intensity atorvastatin monotherapy, combination lipid-lowering therapy was also significantly associated with lower rates of statin discontinuation (10.0% vs. 8.4%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.90, p < 0.001) and new-onset diabetes requiring medication (8.8% vs. 7.0%, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.92, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, a combined lipid-lowering approach utilizing ezetimibe and moderate-intensity atorvastatin was correlated with favorable clinical outcomes, drug compliance, and a reduced incidence of new-onset diabetes requiring medications in patients treated with DES implantation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04715594).

Association Between Body Mass Index and Clinical Outcomes According to Diabetes in Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effect of diabetes on the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and clinical outcomes in patients following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent implantation. METHODS: A total of 6,688 patients who underwent PCI were selected from five different registries led by Korean Multicenter Angioplasty Team. They were categorized according to their BMI into the following groups: underweight (<18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight to obese (≥25.0 kg/m²). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and target-vessel revascularization, were compared according to the BMI categories (underweight, normal and overweight to obese group) and diabetic status. All subjects completed 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 6,688 patients, 2,561 (38%) had diabetes. The underweight group compared to normal weight group had higher 1-year MACCE rate in both non-diabetic (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-4.84; p=0.039) and diabetic patients (adjusted HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.61-5.07; p<0.001). The overweight to obese group had a lower MACCE rate than the normal weight group in diabetic patients (adjusted HR, 0.67 [0.49-0.93]) but not in non-diabetic patients (adjusted HR, 1.06 [0.77-1.46]), with a significant interaction (p-interaction=0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Between the underweight and normal weight groups, the association between the BMI and clinical outcomes was consistent regardless of the presence of diabetes. However, better outcomes in overweight to obese over normal weight were observed only in diabetic patients. These results suggest that the association between BMI and clinical outcomes may differ according to the diabetic status.

Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe vs high-intensity statin according to baseline LDL-C in the treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A post-hoc analysis of the RACING randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Whether the effect of a combination strategy rather than increasing doses of one drug to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels is consistent across baseline LDL-C levels remains uncertain. METHODS: In the RACING trial, which showed a non-inferiority of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (rosuvastatin 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) to high-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg) for the primary outcome (3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular event, or stroke), the heterogeneity in treatment effect according to baseline LDL-C levels was assessed for the primary and secondary outcomes (clinical efficacy and safety). RESULTS: Of 3780 participants, 2817 participants (74.5%) had LDL-C <100 mg/dL, and 963 participants (25.5%) had LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL. The treatment effect of combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy was similar among the lower LDL-C subset (8.8% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.08, p = 0.19) and the higher LDL-C subset (10.8% vs. 9.6 %; HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.7, p = 0.53) without a significant interaction (interaction p = 0.22). Of the secondary outcomes, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year achievement of LDL-C <70 mg/dL was greater in the combination therapy group regardless of baseline LDL-C levels. CONCLUSIONS: Among ASCVD patients, there was no heterogeneity in the effect of moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy in the higher and lower baseline LDL-C levels for the 3-year composite of cardiovascular outcomes.

Effect of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination vs. high-intensity statin therapy according to sex in patients with atherosclerosis.

We aimed to evaluate sex differences in the effects of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy (rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe) versus high-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg) monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This was a sex-specific subgroup analysis of the RACING trial that evaluated the interaction between sex and treatment strategies for the primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke at 3 years). Of 3780 patients in the RACING trial, 954 (25.2%) were women. Regardless of sex, the effect of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy on primary outcome compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy was similar (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [0.63-1.52] in women; HR 0.90 [0.71-1.14] in men). The rate of discontinuation or dose reduction of study drugs due to intolerance was lower in the ezetimibe combination group than in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group in both women (4.5% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.014) and men (4.8% vs. 8.0%, P < 0.001). LDL cholesterol levels of < 70 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years were more frequently achieved in the ezetimibe combination group than in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (all P < 0.001) in both sexes. There were no significant interactions between sex and treatment groups regarding the primary outcome, discontinuation, or dose reduction of study drugs, or the proportion of achievement of LDL cholesterol levels < 70 mg/dL. The effect of ezetimibe combination therapy for the 3-year composite outcomes was not different in both men and women. The benefits of ezetimibe combination therapy on LDL cholesterol lowering and drug tolerance were similarly observed regardless of sex.Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03044665.

Predictors of in-hospital mortality after successful weaning of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock.

Limited knowledge exists regarding the predictors of mortality after successful weaning of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We aimed to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) after successful weaning from ECMO. Data were obtained from a multicenter registry of CS. Successful ECMO weaning was defined as survival with minimal mean arterial pressure (> 65 mmHg) for > 24 h after ECMO removal. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality after successful ECMO weaning. Among 1247 patients with CS, 485 received ECMO, and 262 were successfully weaned from ECMO. In-hospital mortality occurred in 48 patients (18.3%). Survivors at discharge differed significantly from non-survivors in age, cardiovascular comorbidities, cause of CS, left ventricular ejection fraction, and use of adjunctive therapy. Five independent predictors for in-hospital mortality were identified: use of continuous renal replacement therapy (odds ratio 5.429, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.468-11.940; p < 0.001), use of intra-aortic balloon pump (3.204, 1.105-9.287; p = 0.032), diabetes mellitus (3.152, 1.414-7.023; p = 0.005), age (1.050, 1.016-1.084; p = 0.003), and left ventricular ejection fraction after ECMO insertion (0.957, 0.927-0.987; p = 0.006). Even after successful weaning of ECMO, patients with irreversible risk factors should be recognized, and careful monitoring should be done for sign of deconditioning.

Association of Prophylactic Distal Perfusion Cannulation With Mortality in Patients Receiving Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Prophylactic distal perfusion cannulation (PDPC) is protectively associated with limb ischemia in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) receiving femoral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). However, evidence supporting its benefits beyond limb ischemia reduction is scarce. We aimed to investigate whether PDPC, compared with no-PDPC, is associated with a lower risk of mortality in patients receiving VA-ECMO. From a multicenter registry, we identified 479 patients who underwent VA-ECMO support for refractory CS. The association of PDPC with 30-day mortality was assessed using multiple methods, including instrumental variable analysis, overlap weighting, and propensity score matching. Of the 479 patients, 154 (32.2%) received PDPC. The 30-day mortality rate was 33.1% in the PDPC group and 53.2% in the no-PDPC group. The instrumental variable analysis showed a protective association of PDPC with 30-day mortality (absolute risk difference -16.7%, 95% confidence interval -31.3% to -2.1%; relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.96). The findings were consistent in the overlap-weighted analysis (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.98) and in the propensity score-matched analysis (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.00). There were no significant differences in safety outcomes, including stroke, ECMO site bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and sepsis, between PDPC and no-PDPC. In conclusion, PDPC was associated with a lower risk of mortality at 30 days in patients with CS receiving VA-ECMO. The efficacy and safety of PDPC merit evaluation in future randomized studies. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02985008.

Rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin treatment in adults with coronary artery disease: secondary analysis of the randomised LODESTAR trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long term efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin with atorvastatin treatment in adults with coronary artery disease. DESIGN: Randomised, open label, multicentre trial. SETTING: 12 hospitals in South Korea, September 2016 to November 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 4400 adults (age ≥19 years) with coronary artery disease. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were assigned to receive either rosuvastatin (n=2204) or atorvastatin (n=2196) using 2×2 factorial randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a three year composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any coronary revascularisation. Secondary outcomes were safety endpoints: new onset diabetes mellitus; hospital admissions due to heart failure; deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary thromboembolism; endovascular revascularisation for peripheral artery disease; aortic intervention or surgery; end stage kidney disease; discontinuation of study drugs owing to intolerance; cataract surgery; and a composite of laboratory detected abnormalities. RESULTS: 4341 of the 4400 participants (98.7%) completed the trial. Mean daily dose of study drugs was 17.1 mg (standard deviation (SD) 5.2 mg) in the rosuvastatin group and 36.0 (12.8) mg in the atorvastatin group at three years (P<0.001). The primary outcome occurred in 189 participants (8.7%) in the rosuvastatin group and 178 (8.2%) in the atorvastatin group (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.58). The mean low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level during treatment was 1.8 mmol/L (SD 0.5 mmol/L) in the rosuvastatin group and 1.9 (0.5) mmol/L in the atorvastatin group (P<0.001). The rosuvastatin group had a higher incidence of new onset diabetes mellitus requiring initiation of antidiabetics (7.2% v 5.3%; hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.87; P=0.03) and cataract surgery (2.5% v 1.5%; 1.66, 1.07 to 2.58; P=0.02). Other safety endpoints did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with coronary artery disease, rosuvastatin and atorvastatin showed comparable efficacy for the composite outcome of all cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any coronary revascularisation at three years. Rosuvastatin was associated with lower LDL cholesterol levels but a higher risk of new onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery compared with atorvastatin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02579499.

Treat-to-target versus high-intensity statin treatment in patients with or without diabetes mellitus: a pre-specified analysis from the LODESTAR trial.

Background: The impact of titrated versus fixed intensity statin therapy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) remains to be elucidated. Methods: This was a pre-specified analysis of patients with and without DM from the LODESTAR trial. Patients with CAD were randomly assigned to receive either a treat-to-target strategy with a target LDL-C level of 50-70 mg/dL or a high-intensity statin treatment. Primary outcome was the 3-year composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes were safety endpoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02579499. Findings: Between September 9, 2016 and November 27, 2019, 4400 patients with CAD were enrolled in the LODESTAR trial. The median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 59-73 years), 3172 (72%) were male, and 1468 (33%) had DM at baseline. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome between the treat-to-target group and high-intensity statin group among patients with DM (10.5% versus 11.1%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.29, p = 0.70) and those without DM (6.9% versus 7.5%, HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71-1.21, p = 0.58). Among patients without DM, there was a trend towards a lower risk of new-onset DM in the treat-to-target group (8.4% versus 10.4% in the high-intensity statin group, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.01; p = 0.06). Interpretation: In patients with CAD, a treat-to-target LDL-C strategy of 50-70 mg/dL as the goal was comparable to high-intensity statin therapy in terms of 3-year clinical efficacy and safety outcomes regardless of the presence of DM. Funding: Sam Jin Pharmaceutical, Seoul, Korea and Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical, Seoul, Korea.