Temporal modulation (early escalation and late de-escalation) of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing complex high-risk PCI: rationale and design of the TAILORED-CHIP trial.

Despite the use of conventional dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the risk of adverse events remains high among patients with increased thrombotic risk. Until recently, the optimal antiplatelet strategy to balance the ischaemic and bleeding risks in patients who are undergoing complex high-risk PCI has been unclear. The TAILored Versus COnventional AntithRombotic StratEgy IntenDed for Complex HIgh-Risk PCI (TAILORED-CHIP) trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, prospective randomised trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a time-dependent tailored antiplatelet therapy with an early (<6 months post-PCI) escalation (low-dose ticagrelor at 60 mg twice daily plus aspirin) and a late (>6 months post-PCI) de-escalation (clopidogrel monotherapy) in patients undergoing complex high-risk PCI as compared with standard DAPT (clopidogrel plus aspirin for 12 months). Eligible patients had to have at least one high-risk anatomical or procedural feature or clinical characteristic associated with an increased risk of ischaemic or thrombotic events. The primary endpoint was the net clinical outcome, a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, urgent revascularisation, or clinically relevant bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5) at 12 months after randomisation. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03465644).

Widespread Use of Imaging-Guided PCI in Asia: Time for Extended Application.

In recent years, a wealth of clinical data has emerged regarding intravascular imaging involving either intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography. This surge in data has propelled the adoption of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in daily clinical practice. The findings of current randomized clinical trials regarding imaging guidance have lent strong support to the benefits of intravascular imaging-guided PCI. This holds especially true for the diagnosis and treatment of complex lesions, such as left main disease, diffuse long lesions, chronic total occlusion, severely calcified lesions, bifurcations, and in-stent restenosis, as well as in high-risk patients such as those with acute myocardial infarction or chronic kidney disease. During intravascular imaging-guided PCI, operators attempt to achieve stent optimization for maximized benefits of imaging guidance. This paper provides a comprehensive review on the updated clinical data of intravascular imaging-guided PCI and intravascular ultrasound/optical coherence tomography-derived stent optimization criteria.

Aspirin Monotherapy vs No Antiplatelet Therapy in Stable Patients With Coronary Stents Undergoing Low-to-Intermediate Risk Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the perioperative continuation of aspirin in patients with coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) undergoing noncardiac surgery. However, supporting evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare continuing aspirin monotherapy vs temporarily holding all antiplatelet therapy before noncardiac surgery in patients with previous DES implantation. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who had received a DES >1 year previously and were undergoing elective noncardiac surgery either to continue aspirin or to discontinue all antiplatelet agents 5 days before noncardiac surgery. Antiplatelet therapy was recommended to be resumed no later than 48 hours after surgery, unless contraindicated. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke between 5 days before and 30 days after noncardiac surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1,010 patients underwent randomization. Among 926 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (462 patients in aspirin monotherapy group and 464 patients in the no-antiplatelet therapy group), the primary composite outcome occurred in 3 patients (0.6%) in the aspirin monotherapy group and 4 patients (0.9%) in the no antiplatelet group (difference, -0.2 percentage points; 95% CI: -1.3 to 0.9; P > 0.99). There was no stent thrombosis in either group. The incidence of major bleeding did not differ significantly between groups (6.5% vs 5.2%; P = 0.39), whereas minor bleeding was significantly more frequent in the aspirin group (14.9% vs 10.1%; P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing low-to-intermediate risk noncardiac surgery >1 year after stent implantation primarily with a DES, in the setting of lower-than-expected event rates, we failed to identify a significant difference between perioperative aspirin monotherapy and no antiplatelet therapy with respect to ischemic outcomes or major bleeding. (Perioperative Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Drug-eluting Stent Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery [ASSURE-DES]; NCT02797548).

Discordance Between Angiographic Assessment and Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasound in Intermediate Coronary Lesions: A Post-hoc Analysis of the FLAVOUR Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. METHODS: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. RESULTS: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCA-FFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479). Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02673424.

Durable-polymer versus biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndromes: three-year outcomes of the HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up is essential to evaluate the impact of polymer degradation in drug-eluting stents (DES). AIMS: We aimed to compare durable-polymer DES (DP-DES) and biodegradable-polymer DES (BP-DES) during a 3-year follow-up to evaluate the entire period of polymer resolution (before, during, and after degradation). METHODS: The HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial was a randomised clinical trial enrolling patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and comparing the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES. The primary outcome was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), and the key secondary outcome was a device-oriented composite outcome (DOCO). RESULTS: A total of 3,413 ACS patients were randomised to either the DP-DES (1,713 patients) or BP-DES (1,700 patients) group. During the 3-year follow-up, the risk of the POCO was similar between the DP-DES and BP-DES groups (14.8% vs 15.4%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-1.14; p=0.613). However, the risk of the DOCO was lower in the DP-DES group (6.0% vs 8.0%, HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.95; p=0.020). In a landmark analysis, the lower risk of the DOCO for the DP-DES group was evident during the transition from the early to the late period after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (from 8 to 16 months post-PCI; 1.8% vs 3.3%, HR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.34-0.84; p=0.007), which was mainly driven by a risk reduction of target lesion revascularisation. CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients, DP-DES showed similar results to BP-DES regarding the POCO up to 3 years. For the DOCO, DP-DES were superior to BP-DES; this was due to the higher event rate during the period of polymer degradation.

Routine Stress Testing After PCI in Patients With and Without Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Secondary Analysis of the POST-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The appropriate follow-up surveillance strategy for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unknown. Objective: To assess clinical outcomes in patients with and without ACS who have undergone high-risk PCI according to a follow-up strategy of routine stress testing at 12 months after PCI vs standard care alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: The POST-PCI (Pragmatic Trial Comparing Symptom-Oriented vs Routine Stress Testing in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial was a randomized clinical trial that compared follow-up strategies of routine functional testing vs standard care alone 12 months after high-risk PCI. Patients were categorized as presenting with or without ACS. Patients were enrolled in the trial from November 2017 through September 2019, and patients were randomized from 11 sites in South Korea; data analysis was performed in 2022. Intervention: Patients categorized as presenting with or without ACS were randomized to either a routine functional testing or standard care alone follow-up strategy 12 months after high-risk PCI. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina at 2 years following randomization. Kaplan-Meier event rates through 2 years and Cox model hazard ratios (HRs) were generated, and interactions were tested. Results: Of 1706 included patients, 350 patients (20.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) patient age was 64.7 (10.3) years. In total, 526 patients (30.8%) presented with ACS. Compared with those without ACS, patients with ACS had a 55% greater risk of the primary outcome (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.03-2.33; P = .03) due to higher event rates in the first year. The 2-year incidences of the primary outcome were similar between strategies of routine functional testing or standard care alone in patients with ACS (functional testing: 16 of 251 [6.6%]; standard care: 23 of 275 [8.5%]; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.40-1.44; P = .39) and in patients without ACS (functional testing: 30 of 598 [5.1%]; standard care: 28 of 582 [4.9%]; HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.62-1.74; P = .88) (P for interaction for ACS = .45). Although a landmark analysis suggested that the rates of invasive angiography and repeat revascularization were higher after 1 year in the routine functional testing group, the formal interactions between ACS status and either invasive angiography or repeat revascularization were not significant. Conclusion and Relevance: Despite being at higher risk for adverse clinical events in the first year after PCI than patients without ACS, patients with ACS who had undergone high-risk PCI did not derive incremental benefit from routine surveillance stress testing at 12 months compared with standard care alone during follow-up. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03217877.

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy. METHODS: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography. FINDINGS: In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).

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.

Distal Radial Access for Coronary Procedures in a Large Prospective Multicenter Registry: The KODRA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Distal radial access (DRA) as an alternative access route lacks evidence, despite its recent reputation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of DRA on the basis of daily practice. METHODS: The KODRA (Korean Prospective Registry for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach) trial was a prospective multicenter registry conducted at 14 hospitals between September 2019 and September 2021. The primary endpoints were the success rates of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The secondary endpoints included successful distal radial artery puncture, access-site crossover, access site-related complications, bleeding events, and predictors of puncture failure. RESULTS: A total of 4,977 among 5,712 screened patients were recruited after the exclusion of 735 patients. The primary endpoints, the success rates of CAG and PCI via DRA, were 100% and 98.8%, respectively, among successful punctures of the distal radial artery (94.4%). Access-site crossover occurred in 333 patients (6.7%). The rates of distal radial artery occlusion and radial artery occlusion by palpation were 0.8% (36 of 4,340) and 0.8% (33 of 4,340) at 1-month follow-up. DRA-related bleeding events were observed in 3.3% of patients, without serious hematoma. Multilevel logistic regression analysis identified weak pulse (OR: 9.994; 95% CI: 7.252-13.774) and DRA experience <100 cases (OR: 2.187; 95% CI: 1.383-3.456) as predictors of puncture failure. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale prospective multicenter registry, DRA demonstrated high success rates of CAG and PCI, with a high rate of puncture success but low rates of distal radial artery occlusion, radial artery occlusion, bleeding events, and procedure-related complications. Weak pulse and DRA experience <100 cases were predictors of puncture failure. (Korean Prospective Registry for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach [KODRA]; NCT04080700).

Prognostic Implications of Quantitative Flow Ratio and Plaque Characteristics in Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Treatment Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a method for evaluating fractional flow reserve without the use of an invasive coronary pressure wire or pharmacological hyperemic agent. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic implications of QFR and plaque characteristics in patients who underwent intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided treatment for intermediate lesions. METHODS: Among the IVUS-guided strategy group in the FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis) trial, vessels suitable for QFR analysis were included in this study. High-risk features were defined as low QFR (≤0.90), quantitative high-risk plaque characteristics (qn-HRPCs) (minimal lumen area ≤3.5 mm2, or plaque burden ≥70%), and qualitative high-risk plaque characteristics (ql-HRPCs) (attenuated plaque, positive remodeling, or plaque rupture) assessed using IVUS. The primary clinical endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 415 (46.1%) vessels could be analyzable for QFR. The numbers of qn-HRPCs and ql-HRPCs increased with decreasing QFR. Among deferred vessels, those with 3 high-risk features exhibits a significantly higher risk of TVF compared with those with ≤2 high-risk features (12.0% vs 2.7%; HR: 4.54; 95% CI: 1.02-20.29). CONCLUSIONS: Among the IVUS-guided deferred group, vessels with qn-HRPC and ql-HRPC with low QFR (≤0.90) exhibited a significantly higher risk for TVF compared with those with ≤2 features. Integrative assessment of angiography-derived fractional flow reserve and anatomical and morphological plaque characteristics is recommended to improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing IVUS-guided deferred treatment.

Surveillance Stress Testing After Percutaneous Intervention for Patients With Multivessel or Left Main Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surveillance strategy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for high-risk patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the prognostic role of routine functional testing in patients with multivessel or left main CAD who underwent PCI. METHODS: The POST-PCI (Pragmatic Trial Comparing Symptom-Oriented Versus Routine Stress Testing in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial randomized high-risk PCI patients to routine functional testing at 1 year or standard care alone during follow-up. This analysis focused on participants with multivessel or left main CAD. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina at 2 years. RESULTS: Among 1,706 initially randomized patients, 1,192 patients with multivessel (n = 833) or left main (n = 359) were identified, with 589 in the functional testing group and 603 in the standard care group. Two-year incidences of primary outcome were similar between the functional testing group and the standard care group (6.2% vs 5.7%, respectively; HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.68-1.74; P = 0.73). This trend persisted in both groups of multivessel (6.2% vs 5.7%; HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.62-1.89; P = 0.78) and left main disease (6.2% vs 5.7%; HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.46-2.56; P = 0.85) (P for interaction = 0.90). Routine surveillance functional testing was associated with increased rates of invasive angiography and repeat revascularization beyond 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with multivessel or left main CAD who underwent PCI, there was no incremental clinical benefit from routine surveillance functional-testing compared with standard care alone during follow-up. (Pragmatic Trial Comparing Symptom-Oriented Versus Routine Stress Testing in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [POST-PCI]; NCT03217877).

Physiology- or Imaging-Guided Strategies for Intermediate Coronary Stenosis.

Importance: Treatment strategies for intermediate coronary lesions guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) have shown comparable outcomes. Identifying low-risk deferred vessels to ensure the safe deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and high-risk revascularized vessels that necessitate thorough follow-up can help determine optimal treatment strategies. Objectives: To investigate outcomes according to treatment types and FFR and IVUS parameters after FFR- or IVUS-guided treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with intermediate coronary stenosis from the Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial, an investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial that assigned patients into an IVUS-guided strategy (which recommended PCI for minimum lumen area [MLA] ≤3 mm2 or 3 mm2 to 4 mm2 with plaque burden [PB] ≥70%) or an FFR-guided strategy (which recommended PCI for FFR ≤0.80). Data were analyzed from November to December 2022. Exposures: FFR or IVUS parameters within the deferred and revascularized vessels. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and revascularization at 2 years. Results: A total of 1619 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.6] years; 1137 [70.2%] male) with 1753 vessels were included in analysis. In 950 vessels for which revascularization was deferred, incidence of TVF was comparable between IVUS and FFR groups (3.8% vs 4.1%; P = .72). Vessels with FFR greater than 0.92 in the FFR group and MLA greater than 4.5 mm2 or PB of 58% or less in the IVUS group were identified as low-risk deferred vessels, with a decreased risk of TVF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.09-0.71]; P = .009). In 803 revascularized vessels, the incidence of TVF was comparable between IVUS and FFR groups (3.6% vs 3.7%; P = .95), which was similar in the revascularized vessels undergoing PCI optimization (4.2% vs 2.5%; P = .31). Vessels with post-PCI FFR of 0.80 or less in the FFR group or minimum stent area of 6.0 mm2 or less or with PB at stent edge greater than 58% in the IVUS group had an increased risk for TVF (HR, 7.20 [95% CI, 3.20-16.21]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with intermediate coronary stenosis, FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies showed comparable outcomes in both deferred and revascularized vessels. Binary FFR and IVUS parameters could further define low-risk deferred vessels and high-risk revascularized vessels.

Angiographic Severity of the Nonculprit Lesion and the Efficacy of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Complete Revascularization in Patients With AMI: FRAME-AMI Substudy.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for noninfarct-related artery (IRA) lesions with angiographically severe stenosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction is unclear. METHODS: Among 562 patients from the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infraction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) who were randomly allocated into either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions, the current study evaluated the relationship between non-IRA stenosis measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and the efficacy of FFR-guided PCI. The incidence of the primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) was compared between FFR- and angiography-guided PCI according to non-IRA stenosis severity (QCA stenosis ≥70% or <70%). RESULTS: A total of 562 patients were assigned to FFR-guided (n=284) versus angiography-guided PCI (n=278). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary end point occurred in 14 of 181 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 31 of 197 patients with angiography-guided PCI among patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (8.5% versus 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.22-0.80]; P=0.008), while occurred in 4 of 103 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 9 of 81 patients with angiography-guided PCI among those with QCA stenosis <70% (3.9% versus 11.1%; P=0.315). There was no significant interaction between treatment strategy and non-IRA stenosis severity (P for interaction=0.636). FFR-guided PCI was associated with the reduction of death and myocardial infarction in both patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (6.7% versus 15.1%; P=0.008) and those with QCA stenosis <70% (1.0% versus 9.6%; P=0.042) compared with angiography-guided PCI. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, FFR-guided PCI tended to have a lower risk of primary end point than angiography-guided PCI regardless of non-IRA stenosis severity without significant interaction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Deferred Lesions by IVUS Versus FFR-Guided Treatment Decision.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the safety of deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention based on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) findings. The current study sought to compare the prognosis between deferred lesions based on IVUS and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided treatment decision. METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR randomized trial (Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) that compared 2-year clinical outcomes between IVUS- and FFR-guided treatment decision on intermediate coronary artery lesions using predefined criteria. In both IVUS and FFR groups, vessels were classified into deferred or revascularized vessels, and patients were classified as those with or without deferred lesions. Vessel-oriented composite outcomes (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) in deferred vessels and patient-oriented composite outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularization) in patients with deferred lesions were compared between the IVUS and FFR groups. RESULTS: A total of 1682 patients and 1820 vessels were analyzed, of which 922 patients and 989 vessels were deferred. At 2 years, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of vessel-oriented composite outcomes in deferred vessels between IVUS (n=375) and FFR (n=614) groups (3.8% versus 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.47-1.75]; P=0.77). The risk of vessel-oriented composite outcomes was comparable between deferred and revascularized vessels following treatment decision by IVUS (3.8% versus 3.5%; hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.54-2.19]; P=0.81) and FFR (4.1% versus 3.6%; hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.56-2.32]; P=0.72). In comparison of patient-oriented composite outcomes in patients with deferred lesions, there was no significant difference between the IVUS (n=357) and FFR (n=565) groups (6.2% versus 5.9%; hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.61-1.80]; P=0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis, deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention based on IVUS-guided treatment decision showed comparable risk of clinical events with FFR-guided treatment decision. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02673424.

Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Disease in Diabetics: The BEST Extended Follow-Up Study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is associated with more complex coronary artery diseases. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a preferred revascularization strategy over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetics with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the different prognostic effects of revascularization strategies according to the diabetes status from the randomized BEST (Randomized Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) trial. METHODS: Patients (n = 880) with MVD were randomly assigned to undergo PCI with an everolimus-eluting stent vs CABG stratified by diabetics (n = 363) and nondiabetics (n = 517). The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization during a median follow-up of 11.8 years (IQR: 10.6-12.5 years). RESULTS: In diabetics, the primary endpoint rate was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (43% and 32%; HR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.12-2.08; P = 0.008). However, in nondiabetics, no significant difference was found between the groups (PCI group, 29%; CABG group, 29%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.67-1.39; P = 0.86; Pinteraction= 0.009). Irrespective of the presence of diabetes, no significant between-group differences were found in the rate of a safety composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and mortality rate. However, the rate of any repeat revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetics with MVD, CABG was associated with better clinical outcomes than PCI. However, the mortality rate was similar between PCI and CABG irrespective of diabetes status during an extended follow-up. (Ten-Year Outcomes of Randomized Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease [BEST Extended], NCT05125367; Randomized Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease [BEST], NCT00997828).

Impact of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on progression of aortic valve sclerosis and stenosis.

Background: Little research has been assessed atherosclerotic risk factors at various stages of calcific aortic valve disease. This study sought to determine risk factors of patients with aortic valve sclerosis (AVS) and mild to moderate aortic stenosis (AS). Methods: The study included 1,007 patients diagnosed with AVS or mild to moderate AS according to echocardiographic criteria. Patients were identified as a rapid progression group if the annualized difference in peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) between two echocardiographic examinations was >0.08 m/s/yr in AVS and >0.3 m/s/yr in AS, respectively. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to assess the factors associated with rapid disease progression or progression to severe AS. Results: Among 526 AVS patients, higher LDL-C level (odds ratio [OR] 1.22/per 25 mg/dl higher LDL-C, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.43) was significantly associated with rapid disease progression. Compared to patients with LDL-C level <70 mg/dl, the adjusted OR for rapid progression were 1.32, 2.15, and 2.98 for those with LDL-C level of 70-95 mg/dl, 95-120 mg/dl, and ≥120 mg/dl, respectively. Among 481 mild to moderate AS patients, the baseline Vmax (OR 1.79/per 0.5 m/s higher Vmax, 95% CI 1.18-2.70) was associated with rapid progression. Compared to patients with Vmax 2.0-2.5 m/s, the adjusted OR for rapid progression were 2.47, 2.78, and 3.49 for those with Vmax of 2.5-3.0 m/s, 3.0-3.5 m/s, and 3.5-4.0 m/s, respectively. LDL-C and baseline Vmax values were independently associated with progression to severe AS. Conclusion: Atherosclerotic risk factors such as LDL-C were significantly associated with the rapid progression in AVS and baseline Vmax was important in the stage of mild to moderate AS.

Sex Differences in Fractional Flow Reserve- or Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: A recent randomized trial reported fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy was noninferior to the intracoronary ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI strategy with respect to clinical outcomes with fewer revascularizations. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the sex differences in treatment and clinical outcomes according to physiology- or imaging-guided PCI strategies. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of the FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasonography to Guide PCI) trial, the impact of sex on procedural characteristics, PCI rate, and outcomes according to different strategies and treatment types (PCI vs deferral of PCI) was analyzed. The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) at 24 months, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Of 1,619 patients, 30% were women. Compared with men, women had a smaller minimal lumen area, smaller plaque burden, and higher FFR. They had a lower PCI rate (40.8% vs 47.9%; P = 0.008), which was mainly contributed by FFR guidance. Overall, women showed a lower TVF rate (2.4% vs 4.5%). According to the treatment type, the cumulative incidence of TVF was lower in women than in men among those with the deferral of PCI (1.7% vs 5.2%). However, this trend was not observed in patients who underwent PCI. In both women and men, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between the FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of intermediate stenosis, despite receiving fewer interventions, women had more favorable outcomes than men. The use of FFR led to a lower PCI rate but had a similar prognostic value compared with IVUS in both women and men.