Effects of high-gravity acceleration forces and anti-gravity maneuver on the cardiac function of fighter pilots.

The fighter pilots exposed to high gravitational (G) acceleration must perform anti-G maneuvers similar to the Valsalva maneuver. However, the effects of high-G acceleration and anti-G maneuvers on cardiac function have rarely been studied. This study aimed to investigate the effects of high-G forces on cardiac function of fighter pilots. Fighter pilots who underwent regular health check-ups and echocardiography were included (n = 29; 100% men, 41 ± 10 years old; mean flight time, 1821 ± 1186 h). Trainees who had not experienced any flights were included in the control group (n = 16; 100% men, 36 ± 17 years old). Echocardiographic data included left ventricular chamber size, systolic and diastolic functions, right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP), inferior vena cava (IVC) collapsibility, and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE). No significant differences in left ventricular ejection fraction, RVSP, or IVC collapsibility were observed between two groups. In the multivariate linear regression analysis with total flight time as an independent continuous variable for fighter pilots, TAPSE was positively correlated with total flight time. The experience of fighter pilots who were exposed to high-G acceleration forces and anti-G maneuvers did not cause cardiac structural changes, but the exposure might be associated with right heart function changes.

Sustained beneficial effect of ß-blockers on clinical outcomes after discontinuation in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction.

Our previous study demonstrated that beneficial effect of ß-blockers on clinical outcomes in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In clinical practice, ß-blocker treatment is occasionally discontinued due to their side effect. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of discontinuation of ß-blockers on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI. We analyzed the data and clinical outcomes of 901 patients (716 males, 58 ± 13-year-old) STEMI patients who underwent successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention. At discharge of index STEMI, 598 patients were treated with ß-blockers (491 males, 56 ± 12-year-old). After more than 1-month ß-blocker treatment, ß-blockers were stopped in 188 patients for any reason. We classified patients into continuation of ß-blockers (410 patients, 56 ± 12-year-old) and discontinuation of ß-blockers groups (188 patients, 57 ± 11-year-old) according to discontinuation of ß-blockers. Occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; death, recurrent MI and target vessel revascularization) during up to 10 years of follow-up was evaluated. Mean follow-up month was 56 ± 28 month. In 132 patients (22%), MACEs were occurred. The MACE-free survival rates in the 2 groups were not statistically different (log-rank P = .461). Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of discontinuation of ß-blockers for MACEs was 1.006 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.701-1.445, P = .973; all cause of death, HR = 0.942, 95% CI = 0.547-1.622, P = .828; recurrent MI, HR = 0.476, 95% CI = 0.179-1.262, P = .136; target vessel revascularization, HR = 1.417, 95% CI = 0.865-2.321, P = .166). The MACE-free survival and survival rates of the non ß-blockers treatment group was significantly worse than the discontinuation of ß-blockers group (log-rank P = .003 and < 0.001, respectively). This study demonstrated that discontinuation of ß-blockers was not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes after STEMI. The beneficial effect of ß-blockers on clinical outcomes may persist in patients with initial ß-blockers treatment at index STEMI.

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).

Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of Immediate-Release Versus SLOW-Release Carvedilol in Heart Failure Patient (SLOW-HF): a Prospective Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: Carvedilol demonstrated therapeutic benefits in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, it had a short half-life time mandating twice a day administration. We investigated whether slow-release carvedilol (carvedilol-SR) is non-inferior to standard immediate-release carvedilol (carvedilol-IR) in terms of clinical efficacy in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with HFrEF to receive carvedilol-SR once a day or carvedilol-IR twice a day. The primary endpoint was the change in N-terminal pro B-natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level from baseline to 6 months after randomization. The secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with NT-proBNP increment > 10% from baseline, mortality rate, readmission rate, changes in blood pressure, quality of life, and drug compliance. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients were randomized and treated (median follow-up time, 173 days). In each group of patients taking carvedilol-SR and those taking carvedilol-IR, clinical characteristics were well balanced. No patient died during follow-up, and there was no significant difference in the change of NT-proBNP level between two groups (-107.4 [-440.2-70.3] pg/mL vs. -91.2 [-504.1-37.4] pg/mL, p = 0.101). Change of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, control rate and response rate of blood pressure, readmission rate, and drug compliance rate were also similar. For safety outcomes, the occurrence of adverse reactions did not differ between carvedilol-SR group and carvedilol-IR group. CONCLUSION: Carvedilol-SR once a day was non-inferior to carvedilol-IR twice a day in patients with HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03209180 (registration date: July 6, 2017).

Epicardial Adipose Tissue Thickness Is Related to Plaque Composition in Coronary Artery Disease.

(1) Background: Currently, limited data are available regarding the relationship between epicardial fat and plaque composition. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between visceral fat surrounding the heart and the lipid core burden in patients with coronary artery diseases; (2) Methods: Overall, 331 patients undergoing coronary angiography with combined near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular ultrasound imaging were evaluated for epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) thickness using transthoracic echocardiography. Patients were divided into thick EAT and thin EAT groups according to the median value; (3) Results: There was a positive correlation between EAT thickness and maxLCBI4mm, and maxLCBI4mm was significantly higher in the thick EAT group compared to the thin EAT group (437 vs. 293, p < 0.001). EAT thickness was an independent predictor of maxLCBI4mm ≥ 400 along with age, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol level, acute coronary syndrome presentation, and plaque burden in a multiple linear regression model. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that EAT thickness was a predictor for maxLCBI4mm ≥ 400; (4) Conclusions: In the present study, EAT thickness is related to the lipid core burden assessed by NIRS-IVUS in patients with CAD which suggests that EAT may affect the stability of the plaques in coronary arteries.

Central hemodynamics and the discrepancy between central blood pressure and brachial blood pressure.

Despite similar brachial blood pressure, central hemodynamics could be different. The objective of the present study was to investigate the factors, which could influence the discrepancy between central BP (cBP) and brachial blood pressure. Six hundred forty-seven patients (364 males, 48 ± 12 years old) were enrolled. Using applanation tonometry, cBP was noninvasively derived. The median difference between brachial systolic BP (bSBP) and central systolic BP (cSBP) was 8 mm Hg. We defined the discrepancy between bSBP and cSBP as differences >8 mm Hg. For adjustment of cBP, population was divided into 3 groups according to the cBP: group 1, <140 mm Hg of cSBP; group 2, 140 > cSBP < 160 mm Hg; group 3, =160 mm Hg of cSBP. All the central hemodynamic parameters of the patients, including augmentation pressure, augmentation index (AI), heart rate (75 bpm) adjusted augmentation index (AI@HR75), and subendocardial viability ratio, were measured. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, we evaluated the factors which could influence the discrepancy between bSBP and cSBP. Age, gender, augmentation pressure, AI, and AI@HR75 were correlated with the discrepancy between bSBP and cSBP. AI@HR75 was significantly correlated with the discrepancy between bSBP and cSBP (ß-coefficient = -0.376, P < .001 in group 1; ß-coefficient = -0.297, P < .001 in group 2; and ß-coefficient = -0.545, P < .001 in group 3). In groups 1 and 2, male gender was significantly correlated with the discrepancy between bSBP and cSBP (ß-coefficient = -0.857, P = .035 in group 1; ß-coefficient = -1.422, P = .039 in group 2). In present study, arterial stiffness might affect the discrepancy between bSBP and cSBP. Also, male gender was closely related to the discrepancy between bSBP and cSBP especially with cSBP <160 mm Hg. Not only cSBP, the discrepancy between cSBP and bSBP should be considered for understanding the central hemodynamics.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose antihypertensive combination of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone: A randomized, double-blind, parallel, phase II trial.

The aim of this clinical trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose triple combinations of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone in patients with essential hypertension. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, 176 patients were randomized to seven treatment groups (placebo, quarter-dose combination, third-dose combination, half-dose combination, amlodipine 5 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, and telmisartan 80 mg) and administered the assigned study drug orally for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the mean sitting systolic blood pressure (BP) (MSSBP) at Week 8. The MSSBP and mean sitting diastolic BP in the quarter-dose and half-dose groups were significantly lower compared to the placebo and amlodipine 5 mg groups, with similar BP-lowering effects observed compared to the amlodipine 10 mg and telmisartan 80 mg groups. However, the third-dose group showed significant BP improvement only compared to the placebo group. A similar pattern was observed for the control rate of hypertension and response rates. Additional analysis was conducted after correcting for gender and age effects, and, as a result, the third-dose group showed similar results with regard to the BP-lowering effect as the quarter-dose and half-dose groups. In terms of safety, no special adverse events and clinically significant results were noted, and all dose groups of the triple combination are considered safe for use in essential hypertension patients. The current findings indicated that low-dose triple combination of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone over 8 weeks effectively improved the BP-lowering effect in patients with essential hypertension without any safety concerns.

Efficacy and Safety of 3 Versus 6 Months of Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Implanted With a Coroflex ISAR Stents: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after implantation of a drug-eluting stent (DES), especially recently developed polymer-free DESs, is unknown. This study examined the efficacy and safety of 3- versus 6-month DAPT in patients implanted with Coroflex ISAR polymer-free DESs. METHODS: Between May 2015 and August 2020, 488 patients who underwent Coroflex ISAR stent implantation were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to the 3-month (n=244) or 6-month (n=244) DAPT group. RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary endpoint (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] type 2-5 bleeding) occurred in 9 (3.7%) patients in the 3-month DAPT group and in 7 (2.9%) patients in the 6-month DAPT group (hazard ratio 1.31; P=.60). There was no difference between the 3- and 6-month DAPT groups in either BARC type 2-5 bleeding (1.6% vs 0.8%; hazard ratio 2.00; P=.42) or any bleeding (2.9% vs 3.3%; hazard ratio 0.87; P=.80). CONCLUSION: Compared with 6 months of DAPT, 3 months of DAPT did not increase the risk of primary endpoint 1 year after Coroflex ISAR stent implantation, although it should be noted that the trial has limited power to see differences due to low event rate and low recruitment rate.

Clinical impact of guideline-based practice and patients' adherence in uncontrolled hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases like hypertension need comprehensive lifetime management. This study assessed clinical and patient-reported outcomes and compared them by treatment patterns and adherence at 6 months among uncontrolled hypertensive patients in Korea. METHODS: This prospective, observational study was conducted at 16 major hospitals where uncontrolled hypertensive patients receiving anti-hypertension medications (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg) were enrolled during 2015 to 2016 and studied for the following 6 months. A review of medical records was performed to collect data on treatment patterns to determine the presence of guideline-based practice (GBP). GBP was defined as: (1) maximize first medication before adding second or (2) add second medication before reaching maximum dose of first medication. Patient self-administered questionnaires were utilized to examine medication adherence, treatment satisfaction and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were included in the study. Overall, 23% of patients were treated based on GBP at 3 months, and the GBP rate increased to 61.4% at 6 months. At baseline and 6 months, 36.7 and 49.2% of patients, respectively, were medication adherent. The proportion of blood pressure-controlled patients reached 65.5% at 6 months. A higher blood pressure control rate was present in patients who were on GBP and also showed adherence than those on GBP, but not adherent, or non-GBP patients (76.8% vs. 70.9% vs. 54.2%, P < 0.001). The same outcomes were found for treatment satisfaction and QoL (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the importance of physicians' compliance with GBP and patients' adherence to hypertensive medications. GBP compliance and medication adherence should be taken into account when setting therapeutic strategies for better outcomes in uncontrolled hypertensive patients.

Effects of Fixed-dose Combination of Low-intensity Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe Versus Moderate-intensity Rosuvastatin Monotherapy on Lipid Profiles in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia: A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether the combination therapy of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is an useful alternative to moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients requiring cholesterol-lowering therapy. METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized, double-blind study to investigate the safety and efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin 2.5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg (R2.5+E10) compared to those of ezetimibe 10 mg monotherapy (E10), rosuvastatin 2.5 mg (R2.5), and rosuvastatin 5 mg monotherapy (R5) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. A total of 348 patients at 15 centers in Korea were screened, and 279 patients were randomized to different groups in the study. Clinical and laboratory examinations were performed at baseline and 4 and 8 weeks after intervention. The primary endpoint was the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels at the 8-week follow-up. FINDINGS: Baseline characteristics were similar among the four groups. There were significant changes in lipid profiles at the 8-week follow-up. A greater decrease in the LDL cholesterol levels (primary endpoint) were found in the R2.5+E10 group (-45.7±18.6%) than in the E10 group (-16.7±14.7%, p<0.0001), R2.5 group (-32.6±15.1%, p<0.0001), and R5 group (-38.9±13.9%, p=0.0003). Similar outcomes were observed regarding the decrease in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B protein. In addition, changes in the triglyceride and HDL levels in the R2.5+E10 group were significantly different compared with those in the E10 group; however, the changes were similar to those in the other treatment groups. In patients with low and moderate risk, all patients achieved the target LDL cholesterol levels in the R2.5+E10 group (100%) compared to 13.0% in the E10 group, 47.6% in the R2.5 group, and 65.2% in the R5 group. Adverse effects were rare and similar in the four groups. IMPLICATIONS: Fixed-dose combination of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe was more effective in lowering LDL cholesterol and achieving LDL cholesterol goals than moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy. These findings suggest that the combination therapy of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is an useful alternative to moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy for cholesterol management, particularly in patients with low and moderate risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04652349.

Translesional Fractional Flow Reserve is Related to Plaque Components in Coronary Artery Disease: A Study Combining Pressure Wire and NIRS-IVUS Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: It remains unclear whether atherosclerotic plaque structure or composition is related to translesional biomechanical stresses in coronary artery disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between translesional pressure parameters (using a pressure wire) and plaque characteristics (using a combined near-infrared spectroscopy [NIRS] and intravascular ultrasound [IVUS] imaging catheter). METHODS: Fractional flow reserve (FFR), delta (Δ) FFR, and Δ pressure were obtained during adenosine-induced maximum hyperemic status. Lipid core burden index (LCBI) and maximum LCBI within 2 mm (maxLCBI2mm) and tomographic anatomy were evaluated by NIRS-IVUS. RESULTS: Sixty-six lesions from 57 patients were analyzed (57 lesions for FFR, 45 lesions for ΔFFR). There was a negative correlation between FFR and maxLCBI2mm (r=-0.264; P=.049) and a positive correlation between ΔFFR and maxLCBI2mm (r=0.299; P=.049). ΔFFR of lesions with maxLCBI2mm ≥500 was significantly higher than maxLCBI2mm <500 (0.159 ± 0.085 vs 0.104 ± 0.075, respectively; P=.04). By receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, ΔFFR ≥0.1 was a predictor for maxLCBI2mm ≥500 (area under curve, 0.707; 95% confidence interval, 0.552-0.862; P=.03). On multivariate analysis, ΔFFR was the only predictor of maxLCBI2mm (ß=0.347; P=.03). CONCLUSION: ΔFFR across a coronary artery lesion is related to lipid core burden assessed using NIRS-IVUS and might be a meaningful predictor of high-risk plaque (plaque with high lipid content).

Managing Nonagenarians with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Invasive versus Conservative Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available to support an invasive treatment strategy in nonagenarians with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We aimed to investigate whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is beneficial in this frail population. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 41 nonagenarians with AMI (both ST-segment-elevation and non-ST-segment-elevation MI) between 2006 and 2015 in a single center. We assessed 30-day and one-year mortality rates according to the treatment strategy. RESULTS: Among study subjects, 24 (59%) were treated with PCI (PCI group) and 17 (41%) were treated with conservative management (medical treatment group) per the clinician's discretion. The median follow-up duration was 30 months (0-74 months). Thirty-day mortality was lower in the PCI group than in the medical treatment group (17% vs. 65%; P < 0.001). One-year mortality was also lower in the PCI group than in the medical treatment group (21% vs. 76%; P < 0.001). The PCI group presented a 73% decreased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.269; 95% confidence interval: 0.126-0.571; P < 0.001). In the Killip class 1 through 3 subgroups (n = 36), 30-day and one-year mortality were still higher among those in the medical treatment group (13% vs. 54% at 30 days; P < 0.001 and 17% vs. 69% at one year; P < 0.001). Landmark analysis after 30 days revealed no significant difference in the cumulative mortality rate between the two groups, indicating that the mortality difference was mainly determined within the first 30 days after AMI. CONCLUSION: Mortality after AMI was decreased in correlation with the invasive strategy relative to the conservative strategy, even in nonagenarians. Regardless of age, PCI should be considered in AMI patients. However, large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to support our conclusion.

Efficacy and Safety of Nebivolol and Rosuvastatin Combination Treatment in Patients with Concomitant Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nebivolol and rosuvastatin combination treatment in patients with hypertension and hyperlipidemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients, after more than 4 weeks of therapeutic lifestyle change, were randomly assigned to three groups: 5 mg nebivolol plus 20 mg rosuvastatin (NEBI/RSV), 20 mg rosuvastatin (RSV), or 5 mg nebivolol (NEBI). Treatments lasted 8 weeks. RESULTS: Efficacy was analyzed using data from 276 patients. Sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressures differed between the NEBI/RSV and RSV groups (LSmean difference = -5.89 and -5.99 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -9.88 to -1.90 mmHg and -8.13 to -3.84 mmHg, respectively). Reductions in the two pressures did not differ between the NEB/RSV and NEB groups. The percent reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol differed between the NEBI/RSV and NEBI groups (LSmean difference = -47.76%, 95% CI = -52.69 to -42.84%) but not between the NEBI/RSV and RSV groups. The blood pressure (BP) control rate was higher in the NEBI/RSV group than in the RVS group (51.09% vs 29.67%, p = 0.003). The LDL cholesterol goal achievement rate was higher in the NEBI/RSV group than in the NEBI group (85.87% vs 11.83%, p < 0.001). The incidence of adverse drug reactions in the NEBI/RSV, RSV, and NEBI groups was 8.51%, 7.45%, and 8.60%, respectively (p = 0.950). CONCLUSION: Nebivolol plus rosuvastatin treatment is effective in reducing BP and LDL cholesterol levels and is safe in patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia without the loss of BP or the LDL cholesterol-lowering effect of each drug. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRIS registration number KCT0002148.

Relationship between arterial stiffness and variability of home blood pressure monitoring.

Variability of blood pressure (BP) is known as a prognostic value for the subsequent target organ damage in hypertensive patients. Arterial stiffness is a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The relationship between the arterial stiffness and the BP variability has been controversial. The objective of the present study was to investigate the relationship between arterial stiffness and home BP variability in patients with high normal BP and new onset hypertension (HTN).Four hundred sixty three patients (252 males, 49 ±â€Š12 year-old) with high normal BP or HTN were enrolled. Using radial applanation tonometry, pulse wave analysis (PWA) was performed for evaluation of systemic arterial stiffness. All patients underwent both home BP monitoring (HBPM) and PWA. Home BP variability was calculated as the standard deviation (SD) of 7 measurements of HBPM. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to estimate and test the independent effects of home BP variability on the arterial stiffness.Mutivariate analysis showed that both systolic and diastolic morning BP variabilities were correlated with arterial stiffness expressed as augmentation pressure (AP, ß-coefficient = 1.622, P = .01 and ß-coefficient = 1.07, P = .035). The SDs of systolic and diastolic BP of evening were also associated with AP (ß-coefficient = 1.843, P = .001 and ß-coefficient = 1.088, P = .036). The SDs of morning and evening systolic BP were associated with augmentation index (AI, ß-coefficient = 1.583, P = .02 and ß-coefficient = 1.792, P = .001) and heart rate (75 bpm) adjusted AI (ß-coefficient = 1.592, P = .001 and ß-coefficient = 1.792, P = .001).In present study, the variability of systolic BP was closely related with arterial stiffness. The home BP variability might be important indicator of arterial stiffness.

Impact of new-onset diabetes on clinical outcomes after ST segment-elevated myocardial infarction.

Objective. Patients with diabetes have higher mortality rate than patients without diabetes after ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI). Prognosis of patients with new onset diabetes (NOD) after STEMI remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognosis of patients with NOD compared to that of patients without NOD after STEMI. Design. This study was a retrospective observational study. We enrolled 901 STEMI patients. Patients were divided into diabetic and non-diabetic groups at index admission. Non-diabetic group was divided into NOD and non-NOD groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox's proportional hazard regression models were used to compare major adverse cardiac events (MACE) free survival rate and hazard ratio for MACE between NOD and non-NOD groups. Results. Mean follow-up period was 59 ± 28 months. Diabetes group had higher MACE than non-diabetes group (p = .038). However, MACE was not different between NOD and non-NOD groups (p = 1.000). After 1:2 propensity score matching, incidence of MACE was not different between the two groups. In Kaplan-Meier survival curves, MACE-free survival rates were not statistically different between NOD and non-NOD groups either (p = .244). Adjusted hazard ratios of NOD for MACE, all-cause of death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were 0.697 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.362-1.345, p = .282), 0.625 (95% CI: 0.179-2.183, p = .461), 0.794 (95% CI: 0.223-2.835, p = .723), and 0.506 (95% CI: 0.196-1.303, p = .158), respectively. Conclusion. This retrospective observational study with a limited statistical power did not show a different prognosis in patients with and without NOD.

Relationship between arterial stiffness and circadian pattern of blood pressure.

Arterial stiffness is a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The relationship between the arterial stiffness and the circadian pattern of blood pressure (BP) has been controversial. The objective of the present study was to investigate the relationship between arterial stiffness by pulse wave analysis (PWA) and variables of 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) in patients with high normal BP or hypertension (HTN).Five hundred forty-eight patients (304 males, 48 ±â€Š12-year-old) with high normal BP or HTN were enrolled. BP was measured at the outpatient clinic and 24-hour ABPM was performed. Using radial applanation tonometry, PWA was performed for evaluation of systemic arterial stiffness. Patients were classified into four groups according to the dipping patterns: a nocturnal dipping group, an isolated systolic non-dipping group, an isolated diastolic non-dipping group and a both systolic and diastolic non-dipping group. For adjustment of age, population was divided to 2 groups: old group ≥55 year-old (n = 158, 75 males), young group <55 year-old (n = 390, 229 males).According to the dipping patterns, augmentation pressure (AP), augmentation index (AI) and heart rate (75 bpm) adjusted AI (AI@HR75) showed statistically significant difference (P = .011, .009, and .018, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that isolated diastolic non-dipping was correlated with arterial stiffness expressed as AI and AI@HR 75, only in young group (ß-coefficient = 12.6, P = .04 and ß-coefficient = 7.503, P = .028, respectively).Arterial stiffness might be closely related with the pattern of non-dipping in young patients with HTN and high normal BP.

Visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction predicts long-term cardiovascular outcomes.

Elevated visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV), independent of mean BP, has been associated with cardiovascular events. However, its impact after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has not been established. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of BPV on patients after STEMI. We analyzed the data and clinical outcomes of STEMI survivors who underwent successful primary coronary intervention from 2003 to 2009. BP was measured at discharge and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months, and we calculated BPV as the intra-individual standard deviations (SDs) of systolic BP (SBP) across these measurements. We classified the patients as high and low-BPV group, and evaluated the outcomes: occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization within 60 months. We enrolled 343 patients, and mean follow-up duration was 68 ± 34 months (median: 76 months). Mean and median SBP SDs were 13.2 and 12.3 mmHg, and patients were divided into one of the two groups based on the median (high-BPV group = SD ≥ 12.3 mmHg; low-BPV group = SD < 12.3 mmHg). The MACE-free survival in the high-BPV group was significantly worse than that in low-BPV group (log-rank p = 0.035). For the high-BPV group, the risk of a MACE significantly increased by 57% (95% confidence interval: 1.03-2.39; p = 0.038). Visit-to-visit systolic BPV was associated with increased rates of adverse clinical outcomes in patients after STEMI. Careful assessment of BP and attempts to reduce BPV might be also important in STEMI survivors.

Importance of prognostic value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

The ratio between the absolute number of neutrophils and the number of lymphocytes (NLR) has recently emerged as a potential new biomarker predicting worse clinical conditions ranging from infectious disease to cardiovascular disease. Prognostic significance of NLR in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is not established. This study aimed to investigate prognostic impact of NLR in patients with STEMI.We analyzed the data and clinical outcomes of 30-day survivors with STEMI who received successful coronary intervention from 2006 to 2010. NLR was computed from the absolute values of neutrophils and lymphocytes from the complete blood count at admission. Occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; death, recurrent MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR)) at 5 years was evaluated.We enrolled 326 patients and mean follow-up duration was 68 ±â€Š36 months. The mean NLR was 4.7 ±â€Š5.2. Among all patients, all-cause mortality occurred in 46 patients (14%). Initial NLR was higher in patients who experienced all-cause mortality (6.39 ±â€Š8.9 vs 4.2 ±â€Š3.1, P = .004). In a multivariate regression model, the higher NLR was independently associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio, 1.085; 95% confidence interval, 1.002-1.174, P = .044).Increased NLR was associated increased rate of all-cause mortality in 30-day survivors after index STEMI, who received successful coronary intervention.

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.