Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients with mixed angina and pure vasospastic angina.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated differences in clinical outcomes between mixed angina (MA) and pure vasospastic angina (PVA). METHODS: A total of 524 vasospastic angina patients who did or did not have >50% coronary artery stenosis from January 2005 to January 2021 were divided into two groups (Group 1: PVA, N  = 399; Group 2: MA, N  = 125) and then three groups [Group 1: PVA, N  = 399; Group 2: MA without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), N  = 67; Group 3: MA with PCI, N  = 58] for assessment. We recorded the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: the composite of death, myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke or rehospitalization) during 3-year clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Compared to the PVA group, there were significant differences in MACCE (20.8% vs. 11.8%, P  = 0.011) and rehospitalization (20.0% vs. 9.8%, P  = 0.002) in the MA group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients in the MA with PCI group had the highest cumulative incidence rate of MACCE during the 3-year follow-up (log-rank P  < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared with the PVA patients, MA patients had significantly worse clinical outcomes during long-term follow-up.

Clinical Outcomes of Calcium-Channel Blocker vs Beta-Blocker: From the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.

Background: Although current guidelines recommend beta-blockers (BBs) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the role of calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) has not been well investigated, especially nondihydropyridine. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effects of CCBs on cardiovascular outcomes compared with BBs in AMI because patients from East Asia have a higher incidence of a vasospastic angina component compared with Western countries. Methods: Among 15,628 patients enrolled in the KAMIR-V (Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-V), we evaluated 10,650 in-hospital survivors who were treated with either CCBs or BBs. We applied a propensity score for 1:4 pair matching of baseline covariates and Cox regression to compare CCBs and BBs. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 1 year. The secondary endpoints were 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, which was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and readmission due to heart failure and stroke. Results: There was a significant interaction with the treatment arm with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (P for interaction = 0.011). CCB groups at discharge had higher 1-year cardiac death and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events for patients with LVEF <50% (HR: 4.950; 95% CI: 1.329-18.435; P = 0.017; and HR: 1.810; 95% CI: 1.038-3.158; P = 0.037, respectively) but not for patients with LVEF ≥50% (HR: 0.699; 95% CI: 0.435-1.124; P = 0.140). Conclusions: CCB therapy did not increase adverse cardiovascular events for patients after AMI with preserved LVEF. CCBs can be considered as an alternative for BBs in East Asian patients after AMI with preserved LVEF.

Statin therapy reduces dementia risk in atrial fibrillation patients receiving oral anticoagulants.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is linked to an increased risk of dementia, even in stroke-free patients. The impact of statin therapy on dementia risk is unclear in AF patients receiving oral anticoagulant (OAC) (vitamin K antagonist and direct-acting OAC). We sought to investigate the impact of statin therapy on dementia risk in AF patients receiving OAC. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, 91 018 non-valvular AF (NVAF) patients from January 2013 to December 2017 were included in the analysis. Of the total, 17 700 patients (19.4%) were in the statin therapy group, and 73 318 patients (80.6%) were in the non-statin therapy group. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of dementia. The median duration of follow-up was 2.1 years. Statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower dementia risk than non-statin therapy for CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥2 (hazard ratio = 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.90, P = 0.026) in NVAF patients receiving OAC. The statin therapy group had a significantly lower dementia risk in a dose-dependent relationship compared with the non-statin therapy group (P for trend <0.001). CONCLUSION: In NVAF patients who received OAC, statin therapy lowered the dementia risk compared with no statin therapy. Furthermore, statin therapy is associated with a dose-dependent reduction in dementia risk.

Efficacy and Safety of Coadministered Ezetimibe-Rosuvastatin plus Telmisartan in South Korean Patients with Dyslipidemia and Hypertension: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Phase III Trial.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) is expected to improve treatment compliance. METHODS: There were 181 subjects who were randomized to three groups: ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg, ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg, and telmisartan 80 mg. The primary outcomes were change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) and percentage change in low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to baseline at week 8. RESULTS: The least-square mean (SE) in MSSBP changes between the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg group and the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg group were -25.81 (2.34) mmHg and -7.66 (2.45) mmHg. There was a significant difference between the two groups (-18.15 (2.83) mmHg, 95% CI -23.75 to -12.56, p < 0.0001). Changes in least-square mean (SE) in LDL-C between the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg group and the telmisartan 80 mg group were -63.82 (2.87)% and -2.48 (3.12)%. A significant difference was observed between the two groups (-61.34 (3.33)%, 95% CI -67.91 to -54.78, p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe-rosuvastatin plus telmisartan treatment is effective and safe when compared to either ezetimibe-rosuvastatin or telmisartan.

Sex differences between serum uric acid levels and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease after stent implantation.

Background: The relationship between elevated serum uric acid (SUA) levels and cardiovascular outcomes after stent implantation remains uncertain. This study sought to evaluate the impact of SUA on 12-month cardiovascular outcomes after stent implantation. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients who successfully underwent stent implantation and enrolled 3,222 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) from a single center. SUA levels were measured before stent implantation. The patients were divided into six groups (<4, 4-4.9, 5-5.9, 6-6.9, 7-7.9 and ≥ 8 mg/dL) at SUA intervals of 1.0 mg/dL. The incidence of cardiovascular outcomes in the six groups was monitored for 1 year after stent implantation and the hazard ratios were estimated. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for cardiovascular outcomes were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. The secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis and stroke. The follow-up duration was 12 months. Results: Over the 12-month follow-up period, there were 101 all-cause deaths and 218 MACCE. After adjustment for several parameters, the group with SUA levels of more than or equal to 8 mg/dL had significantly higher hazard ratios in the incidence of all-cause death or MACCE. The group with <4.0 mg/dL had significantly higher hazard ratios in all-cause death only in male patients. In contrast, there were no significant differences observed for cardiovascular outcomes in female patients. Conclusions: Our study identified a U-shaped association between SUA levels and cardiovascular outcomes during 12-month follow-up for males, but not for females. Further studies are warranted to clarify the sex differences between SUA levels and clinical outcomes.

Differences in Optimal Platelet Reactivity after Potent P2Y12 Inhibitor Treatment in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: East Asian patients receiving treatment with the potent P2Y12 inhibitors prasugrel or ticagrelor experience more potent platelet inhibition than with clopidogrel. Methods: This study investigated differences in OPR rates with reduced doses of prasugrel (n = 38) or ticagrelor (n = 40) for maintenance therapy in 118 Korean ACS patients who had undergone PCI, in comparison to conventional-dose clopidogrel (n = 40). We assessed drug responses at one- and three-months post-PCI with VerifyNow and multiple electrode aggregometry assays. Results: At the one-month period, patients receiving standard-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor had lower platelet reactivity as determined by the three assays than those receiving the conventional dose of clopidogrel (VN: p = 0.000; MEA: p = 0.000; LTA: p = 0.000). At the 3-month point, platelet reactivity was lower in those receiving reduced-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor than the clopidogrel-treated patients (VN: p = 0.000; MEA: p = 0.012; LTA: p = 0.002). Prasugrel resulted in significantly lower platelet inhibition than ticagrelor as determined by VN and LTA (VN: p = 0.000; LTA: p = 0.003). At three months, there was a significant overall difference in OPR among the three groups when measured by VN (p < 0.001), but not when measured by MEA (p = 0.596). OPR in the reduced-dose prasugrel group was not significantly different to the clopidogrel group at three months (VN: p = 0.180; MEA: p = 0.711). OPR in the reduced-dose ticagrelor group was similar to clopidogrel as determined by MEA at three months, but was different when assessed by VN (VN: p = 0.000; MEA: p = 0.540). Compared to standard-dose, the reduced-dose prasugrel OPR rate was significantly increased (VN: p = 0.008; MEA: p = 0.020). Conclusions: OPR values for reduced-dose prasugrel and conventional-dose clopidogrel at three months were similar but higher than for reduced-dose ticagrelor as determined by VN, but no differences were noted by MEA. The MEA assay might have less sensitivity and consistency than the VN assay. Further studies are needed to explore this discrepancy.

Optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

A challenge for antithrombotic treatment is patients who present with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome, particularly in patients who have undergone coronary percutaneous intervention with stenting (PCIS). In the present study, a total of nine observational trials published prior to July 2017 that investigated the effects of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin + clopidogrel) and triple oral antithrombotic therapy (TOAT; DAPT + warfarin) among patients with AF concurrent to PCIS were collected from the Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases and conference proceedings of cardiology, gastroenterology and neurology meetings. A meta-analysis was performed using fixed- or random-effect models according to heterogeneity. The subgroups were also analyzed on the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stroke and bleeding events in the two treatment groups. Analysis of baseline characteristics indicated that there was no significant difference in the history of coexistent disease or conventional therapies between the DAPT and TOAT groups. The primary end point incidence was 2,588 patients in the DAPT group (n=13,773) and 871 patients in the TOAT group (n=5,262) following pooling of all nine trials. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of primary end points between the DAPT and TOAT groups. Odds ratio (OR)=0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.73-1.27, P=0.79, with heterogeneity between trials (I2=82%, P<0.00001). Subsequently, on subgroup analysis, the results indicated no increased risk of major bleeding or ischemic stroke in the DAPT or TOAT group. However, compared with the TOAT group, there was an apparent increased risk of MACE plus ischemic stroke in the DAPT group (OR=1.62, 95% CI=1.43-1.83, P<0.00001) with heterogeneity between trials (I2=70%, P=0.01). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggests that TOAT (aspirin + clopidogrel + warfarin) therapy for patients with AF concurrent to PCIS significantly reduced the risk of MACE and stroke compared with DAPT (aspirin + clopidogrel) therapy. Further randomized controlled clinical trials are required to confirm the efficacy of the optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with AF following PCIS.