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).

Randomized, multicenter, parallel, open, phase 4 study to compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin/amlodipine polypill versus atorvastatin/amlodipine polypill in hypertension patient with dyslipidemia.

The authors performed this study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin (RSV)/amlodipine (AML) polypill compared with those of atorvastatin (ATV)/AML polypill. We included 259 patients from 21 institutions in Korea. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, or ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of the RSV 10.20 mg/AML 5 mg via percentage changes in LDL-C after 8 weeks of treatment, compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. There was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (full analysis set [FAS]: -7.08%, 95% CI: -11.79 to -2.38, p = .0034, per-protocol analysis set [PPS]: -6.97%, 95% CI: -11.76 to -2.19, p = .0046). Also, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (FAS: -10.13%, 95% CI: -15.41 to -4.84, p = .0002, PPS: -10.96%, 95% CI: -15.98 to -5.93, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the adverse events rates between RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, and ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg. In conclusion, while maintaining safety, RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg more effectively reduced LDL-C compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg (Clinical trial: NCT03951207).

Prasugrel-Based De-Escalation in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome According to Renal Function.

Background: Patients with coronary artery disease and impaired renal function are at higher risk for both bleeding and ischemic adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objectives: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of a prasugrel-based de-escalation strategy in patients with impaired renal function. Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS study. Patients with available estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (n = 2,311) were categorized into 3 groups. (high eGFR: >90 mL/min; intermediate eGFR: 60 to 90 mL/min; and low eGFR: <60 mL/min). The end points were bleeding outcomes (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or higher), ischemic outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, repeated revascularization, and ischemic stroke), and net adverse clinical event (including any clinical event) at 1-year follow-up. Results: Prasugrel de-escalation was beneficial regardless of baseline renal function (P for interaction = 0.508). The relative reduction in bleeding risk from prasugrel de-escalation was higher in the low eGFR group than in both the intermediate and high eGFR groups (relative reductions, respectively: 64% (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15-0.83) vs 50% (HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.90) and 52% (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.21-1.13) (P for interaction = 0.646). Ischemic risk from prasgurel de-escalation was not significant in all eGFR groups (HR: 1.18 [95% CI: 0.47-2.98], HR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.53-1.69], and HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.26-1.39]) (P for interaction = 0.119). Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving PCI, prasugrel dose de-escalation was beneficial regardless of the baseline renal function.

Body Mass Index and Major Adverse Events During Chronic Antiplatelet Monotherapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents　- Results From the HOST-EXAM Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the association of body mass index (BMI) with adverse clinical outcomes during chronic maintenance antiplatelet monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES).Methods and Results: Overall, 5,112 patients were stratified (in kg/m2) into underweight (BMI ≤18.4), normal weight (18.5-22.9), overweight (23.0-24.9), obesity (25.0-29.9) and severe obesity (≥30.0) categories with randomized antiplatelet monotherapy of aspirin 100 mg or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for 24 months. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission due to acute coronary syndrome and major bleeding of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥3. Compared with normal weight, the risk of primary composite outcomes was higher in the underweight (hazard ratio [HR] 2.183 [1.199-3.974]), but lower in the obesity (HR 0.730 [0.558-0.954]) and severe obesity (HR 0.518 [0.278-0.966]) categories, which is partly driven by the difference in all-cause death. The risk of major bleeding was significantly higher in the underweight (HR 4.140 [1.704-10.059]) than in the normal weight category. A decrease in categorical BMI was independently associated with the increased risk of primary composite outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Lower BMI is associated with a higher risk of primary composite outcomes, which is primarily related to the events of all-cause death or major bleeding during chronic maintenance antiplatelet monotherapy after PCI with DES.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled, Factorial Design, Phase III Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy of Pitavastatin and Ezetimibe Versus Monotherapy of Pitavastatin in Patients With Primary Hypercholesterolemia.

PURPOSE: Pitavastatin is a unique lipophilic statin with moderate efficacy in lowering LDL-C levels by 30% to 50% with a tolerable safety profile. However, the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to pitavastatin in patients with dyslipidemia has not been well investigated. Therefore, the objective of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, Phase III study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy with those of pitavastatin monotherapy in Korean patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: Korean men and women aged >19 and <80 years with primary hypercholesterolemia requiring medical treatment were included in this study. During the 8-week screening period, all patients were instructed to make therapeutic lifestyle changes. The screening period consisted of a 4-week washout period and a placebo run-in period (4-8 weeks). During treatment period I, patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 treatments: pitavastatin 2 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, pitavastatin 2 mg, pitavastatin 4 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, or pitavastatin 4 mg. The 8-week double-blind treatment period then commenced. Adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs were assessed in all patients. FINDINGS: The percentages in LDL-C from baseline after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment decreased significantly in the pooled pitavastatin/ezetimibe (-52.8% [11.2%]) and pooled pitavastatin (-37.1% [14.1%]) groups. Treatment with pitavastatin/ezetimibe resulted in a significantly greater LDL-C-lowering effect than that with pitavastatin (difference, -15.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, -18.7 to -12.9; P < 0.001). The precentages of achieving LDL-C goal in pooled pitavastatin/ezetimibe and pooled pitavastatin groups were 94.2% and 69.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions. Serious AEs were comparable between the groups. IMPLICATIONS: Pitavastatin and ezetimibe combinations effectively and safely decreased LDL-C levels by >50% in patients with dyslipidemia. The safety and tolerability of pitavastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy were comparable with those of pitavastatin monotherapy. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04584736.

Erratum: Correction of Text in the Article "Prasugrel-based De-Escalation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With STEMI".

This corrects the article on p. 304 in vol. 52, PMID: 35129316.

Public Reporting on the Quality of Care in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: The Korean Experience.

Public reporting is a way to promote quality of healthcare. However, evidence supporting improved quality of care using public reporting in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is disputed. This study aims to describe the impact of public reporting of AMI care on hospital quality improvement in Korea. Patients with AMI admitted to the emergency room with ICD-10 codes of I21.0 to I21.9 as the primary or secondary diagnosis were identified from the national health insurance claims data (2007-2012). Between 2007 and 2012, 43,240/83,378 (51.9%) patients manifested ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Timely reperfusion rate increased (ß = 2.78, p = 0.001). The mortality rate of STEMI patients was not changed (ß = -0.0098, p = 0.384) but that of NSTEMI patients decreased (ß = -0.465, p = 0.001). Public reporting has a substantial impact on the process indicators of AMI in Korea because of the increased reperfusion rate. However, the outcome indicators such as mortality did not significantly change, suggesting that public reporting did not necessarily improve the quality of care.

Prasugrel-based De-Escalation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With STEMI.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. RESULTS: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48-2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). CONCLUSIONS: Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.

Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio as a Predictor of Venous Thromboembolism after Total Knee Replacement.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially serious complication after total knee replacement (TKR), and recent guideline recommends thromboprophylaxis for VTE after TKR. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has emerged as a simple and new prognostic biomarker for several cardiovascular diseases. This study was performed to investigate the precise incidence of postoperative VTE and the role of NLR for predicting VTE in patients receiving thromboprophylaxis after TKR. We retrospectively enrolled 264 patients undergoing TKR who underwent routine screening enhanced pulmonary artery and lower extremity venography computed tomography (CT) scan within 7 postoperative days. Biochemical tests were performed within 2 weeks prior to surgery, and the NLR was defined as the absolute neutrophil count in peripheral blood divided by lymphocyte count. All patients received thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin postoperatively. Of 264 patients, 102 (38.6%) were diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism on CT scan. Preoperative NLR was significantly higher in patients with postoperative VTE compared with that in patients without VTE (2.57 ± 1.59 vs. 2.11 ± 1.10, p = 0.011). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that a preoperative NLR of 1.90 was the best cutoff value for the prediction of postoperative VTE (sensitivity 57.8%, specificity 55.6%, and area under curve 0.589). In the multivariate analysis, a preoperative NLR ≥1.90 was a sole independent predictor of postoperative VTE (odds ratio: 1.95, 95% computed tomography: 1.16-3.31, p = 0.013). The present study shows a higher incidence of VTE (38.6%) after TKR in patients receiving thromboprophylaxis than that reported in previous studies. Furthermore, preoperative NLR was significantly higher in patients with postoperative VTE, and a high preoperative NLR (≥1.90) was an independent predictor of VTE after TKR. NLR measurement may be a simple and useful method for the prediction of VTE in patients undergoing TKR.

Safety and Efficacy of Pitavastatin in Patients With Impaired Fasting Glucose and Hyperlipidemia: A Randomized, Open-labeled, Multicentered, Phase IV Study.

PURPOSE: Although the role of high-intensity lipid-lowering therapy in cardiovascular protection has broadened, concerns still exist about new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM), especially in vulnerable patients. This study aimed to compare the effect of high-dose (4 mg/d) and usual dose (2 mg/d) pitavastatin on glucose metabolism in patients with hyperlipidemia and impaired fasting glucose (IFG). METHODS: In this 12-month study, glucose tolerance and lipid-lowering efficacy of high-dose pitavastatin (4 mg [study group]) was compared with that of usual dose pitavastatin (2 mg [control group]) in patients with hyperlipidemia and IFG. The primary end point was the change of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) after 24 weeks of treatment. The secondary end points were as follows: (1) NODM within 1 year after treatment, (2) change of lipid parameters, (3) changes of adiponectin, and (4) change of blood glucose and insulin levels. FINDINGS: Of the total 417 patients screened, 313 patients with hypercholesterolemia and IFG were randomly assigned into groups. The mean (SD) change in HbA1c was 0.06% (0.20%) in the study group and 0.03% (0.22%) in the control group (P = 0.27). Within 1 year, 27 patients (12.3%) developed NODM, including 12 (10.6%) of 113 patients in the study group and 15 (14.2%) of 106 in the control group (P = 0.43). The study group had a significantly higher reduction of total cholesterol and LDL-C levels and a higher increase in apolipoprotein A1/apolipoprotein B ratio (0.68 [0.40] vs 0.51 [0.35], P < 0.01). IMPLICATIONS: The high-dose pitavastatin therapy did not aggravate glucose metabolism compared with the usual dose therapy. Moreover, it had a better effect on cholesterol-lowering and apolipoprotein distribution in the patients with hyperlipidemia and IFG.

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents With Biolimus-Eluting Stents in All-Comer Patients.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data comparing the Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with the BioMatrix biolimus-eluting stent (BES). METHODS: This open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial enrolled all-comer patients to be randomly treated with either BES, EES, or ZES in a 1:1:1 ratio in 15 centers across South Korea. The primary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 24 months. The BES was compared with the EES and the ZES by intention-to-treat analyses with a noninferiority margin of 3.8%, respectively. RESULTS: Because of slow recruitment and low event rates, this trial was prematurely terminated after enrollment of 1935 (75%) of the intended 2580 patients. Of the 1911 patients randomized to either EES (n=638), BES (n=634), or ZES (n =639), the rate of device-oriented composite outcome was 3.6%, 2.2%, and 3.9%, respectively, at 24 months (BES versus EES: absolute risk difference -1.4% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: -3.2%]; Pfor noninferiority <0.001; BES versus ZES: absolute risk difference -1.7% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: -3.6%]; Pfor noninferiority <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The BES was noninferior to either the EES or the ZES in all-comer patients for device-oriented composite outcome at the 24-month follow-up. However, caution is advised regarding interpretation of these results due to the premature termination of this study. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01397175.

Effect of Low-Dose Nebivolol in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Multi-Center Observational Study.

The optimal dose of beta blockers after acute myocardial infarction (MI) remains uncertain. We evaluated the effectiveness of low-dose nebivolol, a beta1 blocker and a vasodilator, in patients with acute MI. A total of 625 patients with acute MI from 14 teaching hospitals in Korea were divided into 2 groups according to the dose of nebivolol (nebistol®, Elyson Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea): low-dose group (1.25 mg daily, n=219) and usual- to high-dose group (≥2.5 mg daily, n=406). The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, composite of death from any cause, non-fatal MI, stroke, repeat revascularization, rehospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure) at 12 months. After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, the rates of MACCE were not different between the low-dose and the usual- to high-dose groups (2.8% and 3.1%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 2.24, p=0.860). The low-dose nebivolol group showed higher rates of MI than the usual- to high-dose group (1.2% and 0%, p=0.008). The 2 groups had similar rates of death from any cause (1.1% and 0.3%, p=0.273), stroke (0.4% and 1.1%, p=0.384), repeat PCI (1.2% and 0.8%, p=0.428), rehospitalization for unstable angina (1.2% and 1.0%, p=0.743) and for heart failure (0.6% and 0.7%, p=0.832). In patients with acute MI, the rates of MACCE for low-dose and usual- to high-dose nebivolol were not significantly different at 12-month follow-up.

Ezetimibe and Rosuvastatin Combination Treatment Can Reduce the Dose of Rosuvastatin Without Compromising Its Lipid-lowering Efficacy.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare the lipid-lowering efficacy of the combination of ezetimibe and low- or intermediate-intensity statin therapy versus that of high-intensity statin monotherapy. METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, Phase III trial. Patients who had hypercholesterolemia and required lipid-lowering treatment were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 treatment groups: rosuvastatin 5 mg (R5, n = 68), rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10, n = 67), rosuvastatin 20 mg (R20, n = 69), and ezetimibe 10 mg combined with rosuvastatin 5 mg (R5 + E10, n = 67), rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10 + E10, n = 68), and rosuvastatin 20 mg (R20 + E10, n = 68) daily. The effects of coadministration of ezetimibe and a low dose of rosuvastatin on lipid parameters and the target achievement rate were compared between the R5 + E10 and R10 treatment groups, the R5 + E10 and R20 treatment groups, and the R10 + E10 and R20 treatment groups. FINDINGS: Reductions in total cholesterol, LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, the apolipoprotein B/A1 ratio, and non-HDL-C were not different between the R5 + E10 and R10 treatment groups (all, P > 0.017), the R5 + E10 and R20 treatment groups (all, P > 0.017), and the R10 + E10 and R20 treatment groups (all, P > 0.017). R5 + E10 treatment showed efficacy comparable to that of R10 or R20 in affording LDL levels <50% of the baseline level (R5 + E10 vs R10, 73.13% vs 62.69% [P = 0.1952]; R5 + E10 vs R20, 73.13% vs 73.91% [P = 0.9180]), LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL (R5 + E10 vs R10, 64.18% vs 55.22% [P = 0.2906]; R5 + E10 vs R20, 64.18% vs 62.32% [P = 0.8220]), and LDL-C levels <50% of the baseline level or <70 mg/dL (R5 + E10 vs R10, 77.61% vs 70.15% [P = 0.3255]; R5 + E10 vs R20, 77.61% vs 78.26% [P = 0.9273]). The R10 + E10 treatment group was better than the R20 treatment group in achieving the target LDL-C level <70 mg/dL (83.82% vs 62.32%; P = 0.0046), even among participants with a baseline LDL-C level >135 mg/dL (77.5% vs 48.8%, respectively; P = 0.0074). IMPLICATIONS: Ezetimibe combined with low- or intermediate-intensity statin therapy has lipid-lowering efficacy comparable to or better than that of high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy. The results of the present study indicate that the combination treatment with ezetimibe is advantageous in that it permits dose reduction of rosuvastatin without compromising the lipid-lowering efficacy of rosuvastatin. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02205606.

The Current Status of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Korea: Based on Year 2014 & 2016 Cohort of Korean Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (K-PCI) Registry.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this second report from Korean percutaneous coronary intervention (K-PCI) registry, we sought to describe the updated information of PCI practices and Korean practice pattern of PCI (KP3). METHODS: In addition to K-PCI registry of 2014, new cohort of 2016 from 92 participating centers was appended. Demographic and procedural information, as well as in-hospital outcomes, of PCI was collected using a web-based reporting system. KP3 class C was defined as any strategy with less evidence from randomized trials and more aggressive for PCI than medical therapy or bypass-surgery. RESULTS: In 2016, total 48,823 PCI procedures were performed at 92 participating centers. Mean age of the patients was 65.7±11.6 years, and 71.7% were males. Overall patient characteristics and PCI practices in 2016 were similar to those in 2014. The biggest change was the decrease in the in-hospital occurrence of myocardial infarction (MI;1.6%→0.7%, p<0.001). Many associations between PCI volumes and demographic/procedural characteristics observed in 2014 have disappeared. The median of door-to-balloon time was 62 minutes, and 83.3% of ST-elevation MI patients received primary PCI within 90 minutes, while the median of total ischemic time was 168 minutes and patients who had total ischemic time within 120 and 180 minutes were 29.1% and 54.1%, respectively. The proportion of KP3 class C cases in non-acute coronary syndrome patients decreased from 13.5% in 2014 to 12.1% in 2016 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this second report from K-PCI registry, we described the current practices of PCI and changes from 2014 to 2016 in Korea.

Transradial versus transfemoral intervention in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the Korean transradial intervention registry of 1 285 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Although the implementation of transradial intervention (TRI) has increased over the last few years, there are limited data on the impact of TRI on efficacy and safety in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). We sought to compare one-year clinical outcomes and bleeding complications of TRI with those of transfemoral intervention (TFI) in patients with NSTE-ACS. METHODS: The Korean TRI registry was a cohort of 20 centres from 2012 to 2015. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death (CD), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and repeat revascularisation (RR). Among the 1 319 patients with NSTE-ACS, 1 285 were finally analysed after excluding 34 due to lack of follow-up data. The patients were divided into TRI and TFI groups according to the final access site. RESULTS: At one-year follow up, the TRI group showed a significantly lower rate of MACE, and a marginally significantly lower rate of CD than the TFI group in the crude population. However, in propensity-score matched analysis, the rate of MACE did not differ between the TRI and TFI groups. Regarding bleeding complications, the TRI group was associated with significantly lower rates of major bleeding in both the crude and matched populations. Independent predictors of MACE were chronic kidney disease (CKD) and multi-vessel disease (MVD). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NSTE-ACS, TRI was associated with favourable one-year clinical outcomes and lower bleeding complications compared to TFI. Independent predictors of MACE were clinical and angiographic profiles (CKD, MVD) rather than vascular access sites.

A multicenter, randomized, and double-blind phase IV clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine orotate/valsartan 5/160 mg versus valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide 160/12.5 mg in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by valsartan 160 mg monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether the effectiveness and safety of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of amlodipine orotate/valsartan (AML/VAL) 5/160 mg are noninferior to those of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (VAL/HCTZ) 160/12.5 mg in hypertensive patients with inadequate response to valsartan 160 mg monotherapy. METHODS: This 8-week, active-controlled, parallel-group, fixed-dose, multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled, and noninferiority trial was conducted at 17 cardiovascular centers in the Republic of Korea. Eligible patients had mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) ≥90 mm Hg despite monotherapy with valsartan 160 mg for 4 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with AML/VAL 5/160 mg FDC (AML/VAL) group or VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg FDC (VAL/HCTZ) group once daily for 8 weeks. A total of 238 patients were enrolled (AML/VAL group, n = 121; VAL/HCTZ group, n = 117), of whom 228 completed the study. RESULTS: At 8 weeks after randomization, msDBP was significantly decreased in both groups (-9.44 ±â€Š0.69 mm Hg in the AML/VAL group and -7.47 ±â€Š0.71 mm Hg in the VAL/HCTZ group, both P < .001 vs baseline). Between group difference was -1.96 ±â€Š1.00 mm Hg, indicating that AML/VAL 5/160 mg FDC was not inferior to VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg FDC at primary efficacy endpoint. Control rate of BP defined as the percentage of patients achieving mean sitting SBP (msSBP) <140 mm Hg or msDBP <90 mm Hg (target BP) from baseline to week 8 was significantly higher in the AML/VAL group than that in the VAL/HCTZ group (84.3% [n = 102] in the AML/VAL group vs 71.3% [n = 82] in the VAL/HCTZ group, P = .016). At 8 weeks after randomization, mean uric acid level was significantly increased in the VAL/HCTZ group compared to that at baseline (0.64 ±â€Š0.08 mg/dL; P < .001). However, it was slightly decreased from baseline in the AML/VAL group (-0.12 ±â€Š0.08 mg/dL; P = .085). The intergroup difference was significant (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and safety AML/VAL 5/160 mg FDC are noninferior to those of VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg FDC in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled by valsartan 160 mg monotherapy.

S-amlodipine plus chlorthalidone vs. S-amlodipine plus telmisartan in hypertensive patients unresponsive to amlodipine monotherapy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of a combination of a calcium channel blocker (CCB) plus chlorthalidone (diuretic) versus a CCB plus an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in patients not responding to CCB monotherapy has not been evaluated previously. We plan to compare the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine (CCB) plus chlorthalidone versus S-amlodipine plus telmisartan (ARB) combinations among hypertension patients unresponsive to amlodipine monotherapy. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel, non-inferiority phase 4 study. Hypertension patients who have been treated with amlodipine (5 mg) or S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) monotherapy for ≥2 weeks and whose mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) is greater than 90 mmHg will be randomized to either S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus chlorthalidone (25 mg) or S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus telmisartan (40 mg) therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint is mean sitting DBP change after 12 weeks of treatment. The study objective is to prove the non-inferiority of the former combination (test drug) as compared to the latter one (control) with a non-inferiority margin of 3 mmHg in mean DBP change. The secondary endpoints are 6-week DBP change, 6- and 12-week sitting systolic BP (SBP) change, and the attainment of the target BP (SBP < 140 mmHg or DBP < 90 mmHg). Urine albumin, albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR), pulse wave velocity, central BP, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, and body fluid composition analysis will be performed at each hospital's discretion. The sample size was estimated as 170 in total with 1:1 randomization. DISCUSSION: This is the first study comparing the efficacy of a CCB plus chlorthalidone versus a CCB plus an ARB in patients who are not responding to CCB single therapy. The study result will help clinicians to choose between chlorthalidone and telmisartan in CCB-unresponsive patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03226340. Registered on 2 December 2015.

A Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Active Comparator Clinical Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy With Ezetimibe and Rosuvastatin Versus Rosuvastatin Monotherapy in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia: I-ROSETTE (Ildong Rosuvastatin & Ezetimibe for Hypercholesterolemia) Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Combination therapy with ezetimibe and statins is recommended in cases of statin intolerance or insufficiency. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with ezetimibe and rosuvastatin versus those of rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: I-ROSETTE (Ildong ROSuvastatin & ezETimibe for hypercholesTElolemia) was an 8-week, double-blind, multicenter, Phase III randomized controlled trial conducted at 20 hospitals in the Republic of Korea. Patients with hypercholesterolemia who required medical treatment according to National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines were eligible for participation in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive ezetimibe 10 mg/rosuvastatin 20 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg/rosuvastatin 10 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg/rosuvastatin 5 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg, or rosuvastatin 5 mg in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio. The primary end point was the difference in the mean percent change from baseline in LDL-C level after 8 weeks of treatment between the ezetimibe/rosuvastatin and rosuvastatin treatment groups. All patients were assessed for adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs. FINDINGS: Of 396 patients, 389 with efficacy data were analyzed. Baseline characteristics among 6 groups were similar. After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, the percent changes in adjusted mean LDL-C levels at week 8 compared with baseline values were -57.0% (2.1%) and -44.4% (2.1%) in the total ezetimibe/rosuvastatin and total rosuvastatin groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The LDL-C-lowering efficacy of each of the ezetimibe/rosuvastatin combinations was superior to that of each of the respective doses of rosuvastatin. The mean percent change in LDL-C level in all ezetimibe/rosuvastatin combination groups was >50%. The number of patients who achieved target LDL-C levels at week 8 was significantly greater in the ezetimibe/rosuvastatin group (180 [92.3%] of 195 patients) than in the rosuvastatin monotherapy group (155 [79.9%] of 194 patients) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs, adverse drug reactions, and serious AEs; laboratory findings, including liver function test results and creatinine kinase levels, were comparable between groups. IMPLICATIONS: Fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin significantly improved lipid profiles in patients with hypercholesterolemia compared with rosuvastatin monotherapy. All groups treated with rosuvastatin and ezetimibe reported a decrease in mean LDL-C level >50%. The safety and tolerability of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin therapy were comparable with those of rosuvastatin monotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02749994.

Randomized Prospective Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting vs. Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention　- 3-Year Clinical Outcomes of the EXCELLENT Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) have equivalent short-term angiographic and clinical outcomes to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), but EES may be superior to SES with regard to long-term clinical safety. We report the 3-year clinical outcomes of EES and SES from the prospective EXCELLENT Randomized Trial (NCT00698607).Methods and Results:We randomly assigned 1,443 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention 3:1 to receive EES and SES, respectively. We investigated endpoints including target lesion failure (TLF) and individual clinical outcomes including stent thrombosis (ST) at 3 years. For EES and SES, the TLF rate was 4.82% and 4.12% (risk ratio [RR], 1.16, 95% CI: 0.65-2.06, P=0.62), respectively. Results were similar in other efficacy endpoints including target lesion revascularization. For safety endpoints, rate of all-cause death was significantly lower for EES (1.67%) than SES (3.57%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI: 0.23-0.94, P=0.03), while the incidence of cardiac death or myocardial infarction was numerically lower in EES. On 1-year landmark analysis, rates of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events were significantly lower for EES than SES. Definite or probable ST was numerically 3-fold higher for SES (1.37%) compared with EES (0.46%). CONCLUSIONS: EES and SES had similar efficacy with regard to 3-year outcomes in the EXCELLENT trial, while delayed safety events all trended to favor EES.