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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moderate-Intensity Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy vs High-Intensity Statin Monotherapy in Patients at Very High Risk of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis From the RACING Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High-intensity statin is strongly recommended in patients at very high risk (VHR) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, concerns about statin-associated adverse effects result in underuse of this strategy in practice. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination in VHR and non-VHR patients with ASCVD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc analysis of the Randomized Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Lipid Lowering With Statin Monotherapy vs Statin/Ezetimibe Combination for High-Risk Cardiovascular Disease (RACING) open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted from February 2017 to December 2018 at 26 centers in Korea. Study participants included patients with documented ASCVD. Data were analyzed from April to June 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (rosuvastatin, 10 mg, with ezetimibe, 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin, 20 mg). Patients at VHR for ASCVD were defined according to the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the 3-year outcome of cardiovascular death, coronary or peripheral revascularization, hospitalization of cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke. Results: A total of 3780 patients (mean [SD] age, 64 [10] years; 2826 male [75%]) in the RACING trial, 1511 (40.0%) were categorized as VHR, which was associated with a greater occurrence of the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15-1.75). There was no significant difference in the primary end point between those who received combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy among patients with VHR disease (11.2% vs 11.7%; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.30) and non-VHR disease (7.7% vs 8.7%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66-1.18). The median low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level was significantly lower in the combination therapy group than in the high-intensity statin group (VHR, 1 year: 57 [47-71] mg/dL vs 65 [53-78] mg/dL; non-VHR, 1 year: 58 mg/dL vs 68 mg/dL; P < .001). Furthermore, in both the VHR and non-VHR groups, combination therapy was associated with a significantly greater mean change in LDL-C level (VHR, 1 year: -19.1 mg/dL vs -10.1 mg/dL; 2 years: -22.3 mg/dL vs -13.0 mg/dL; 3 years: -18.8 mg/dL vs -9.7 mg/dL; non-VHR, 1 year: -23.7 mg/dL vs -12.5 mg/dL; 2 years: -25.2 mg/dL vs -15.1 mg/dL; 3 years: -23.5 mg/dL vs -12.6 mg/dL; all P < .001) and proportion of patients with LDL-C level less than 70 mg/dL (VHR, 1 year: 73% vs 58%; non-VHR, 1 year: 72% vs 53%; P < .001). Discontinuation or dose reduction of the lipid-lowering drug due to intolerance occurred less frequently in the combination therapy group (VHR, 4.6% vs 7.7%; P = .02; non-VHR, 5.0% vs 8.7%; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Results suggest that the outcomes of ezetimibe combination observed in the RACING trial were consistent among patients at VHR of ASCVD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03044665.

Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Synergy Stents in Patients Aged ≥75 Years: 1-Year Clinical Outcomes from the Synergy Elderly Registry.

Data regarding the clinical outcomes of older patients after Synergy everolimus-eluting stent (S-EES) implantation are limited. This study investigated the 12-month clinical outcomes of older patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with new-generation drug-eluting stents according to ischemic risks. This prospective multicenter study targeted patients aged ≥75 years who underwent S-EES implantation. The primary and secondary end points included 12-month device-oriented composite end point (DOCE) (cardiovascular death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs; all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, or stroke), respectively. A stratified analysis was conducted according to high-ischemic risk (HIR), defined as complex coronary intervention (number of stents implanted ≥3, total stented length >60 mm, chronic total occlusion, left main, or bifurcation), diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. In total, 650 enrolled patients aged ≥75 years were categorized into HIR (n = 425) and non-HIR groups (n = 225). In the total population, the 1-year incidence of DOCEs was 2.5%. The rates of DOCEs were not significantly different between the HIR and the non-HIR groups, whereas the MACCE rate was higher in the HIR (9.4%) than the non-HIR group (4.9%, p = 0.035), and the DOCE and MACCE components did not differ significantly in the occurrence between the groups. The independent predictors for the DOCEs or MACCEs included age, anemia, or left ventricular ejection fraction <40%. In conclusion, in older patients, S-EES implantation demonstrated favorable device-related outcomes, regardless of procedural complexity or co-morbidities. However, it requires careful attention because older patients with HIR are associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Impact of guideline-directed medical therapy on 5-year mortality in patients with newly diagnosed peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend that patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) should be treated with antithrombotic agents, renin-angiotensin-system blockers, and statins. However, the clinical impact of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) on long-term mortality in patients with newly diagnosed PAD remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of GDMT and evaluate 5-year mortality according to GDMT after PAD diagnosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, using nationwide health insurance claims data in Korea, included patients newly diagnosed with PAD between 2006 and 2015. GDMT was defined as the use of all drugs, including antithrombotic agents, renin-angiotensin-system blockers, and statins, within 3 months of PAD diagnosis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We investigated 19,561 newly diagnosed patients with PAD without proven cardiovascular disease. Among the study population, 4378 patients (22.4%) were categorized in the GDMT and 15,183 (77.6%) in the non-GDMT groups. During the 5-year follow-up, GDMT showed a lower incidence of all-cause mortality than that of non-GDMT (2.8% vs 4.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.329; 95% confidence interval, 0.257-0.421; P < .001). Even in the propensity-matched population, GDMT showed a lower mortality rate than non-GDMT (hazard ratio, 0.283; 95% confidence interval, 0.217-0.370; P < .001). As the number of guideline-recommended drugs increased, the mortality rate decreased proportionately. CONCLUSIONS: After PAD diagnosis, GDMT was associated with a lower incidence of mortality regardless of proven cardiovascular disease. This retrospective analysis showed an insufficient prevalence of GDMT among patients with PAD in real-world practice.

Device Effectiveness for Femoropopliteal Artery Disease Treatment: An Analysis of K-VIS ELLA Registry.

BACKGROUND: Although drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DES) are frequently used for the treatment of femoropopliteal artery (FPA) disease, their mid- or long-term clinical efficacy in real-world practice is still limited. OBJECTIVES: From the K-VIS ELLA (Korean Vascular Intervention Society Endovascular Therapy in Lower Limb Artery Diseases) multicenter registry cohort, clinical outcomes of drug-eluting devices for FPA lesions in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) were evaluated. METHODS: Limbs that underwent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for FPA lesions with plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA, n = 826), BMS (n = 943), DCBs (n = 778), or DES (n = 227) between 2012 and 2020 were included. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to account for confounding. RESULTS: After inverse probability of treatment weighting, baseline characteristics were well-balanced among groups. Compared with the 2-year cumulative incidence of TLR with BMS (26.5%), the incidence of TLR was significantly lower in limbs treated with DCBs (15.9%; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.30-0.64; P < 0.001) or DES (15.9%; HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.29-0.87; P = 0.014). No significant differences were observed in the risk of TLR between DCBs vs DES (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.51-1.49; P = 0.613) and POBA vs BMS (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.73-1.21; P = 0.626). All-cause mortality was comparable in the 4 groups. Treatment with DCBs showed a more pronounced favorable outcome in limbs with Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II type C/D lesions or long lesions (≥150 mm) compared with POBA, BMS, or DES (Pinteraction< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world practice, DCBs and DES demonstrated comparably superior midterm outcomes over POBA or BMS in the treatment of FPA lesions.

Combination Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The RACING (randomized comparison of efficacy and safety of lipid-lowering with statin monotherapy versus statin/ezetimibe combination for high-risk cardiovascular diseases) trial examined the effects of combination therapy with moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy. OBJECTIVES: This observational study was conducted to evaluate the impact of 2 treatment strategies used in the RACING trial in clinical practice. METHODS: After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, a total of 72,050 patients who were prescribed rosuvastatin after drug-eluting stent implantation were identified from a nationwide cohort database: 10,794 patients with rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (combination lipid-lowering therapy) and 61,256 patients with rosuvastatin 20 mg monotherapy. The primary endpoint was the 3-year composite event of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure treatment, or nonfatal stroke in accordance with the RACING trial. RESULTS: Combination lipid-lowering therapy was associated with a lower occurrence of the primary endpoint (11.6% vs 15.2% for those with high-intensity statin monotherapy; HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.70-0.79; P < 0.001). Compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy, combination lipid-lowering therapy was associated with fewer discontinuations of statin (6.5% vs 7.6%; HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78-0.94: P < 0.001) and a lower occurrence of new-onset diabetes requiring medication (7.7% vs 9.6%; HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.72-0.88; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, combination lipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe and moderate-intensity statin was associated with favorable clinical outcomes and drug compliance in patients treated with drug-eluting stent implantation. (CONNECT DES Registry; NCT04715594).

Effect of Cilostazol on Patients With Diabetes Who Underwent Endovascular Treatment for Peripheral Artery Disease.

Background No large-scale study has compared the clinical impact of triple antiplatelet therapy (TAPT: aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) on adverse limb events in patients with diabetes after endovascular therapy (EVT) for peripheral artery disease. Thus, we investigate the effect of cilostazol added to a DAPT on the clinical outcomes after EVT in patients with diabetes using a nationwide, multicenter, real-world registry. Methods and Results A total of 990 patients with diabetes who underwent EVT were enrolled from the retrospective cohorts of a Korean multicenter EVT registry and were divided according to the antiplatelet regimen (TAPT [n=350; 35.4%] versus DAPT [n=640; 64.6%]). After propensity score matching based on clinical characteristics, a total of 350 pairs were compared for clinical outcomes. The primary end points were major adverse limb events, a composite of major amputation, minor amputation, and reintervention. For the matched study groups, the lesion length was 125.4±102.0 mm, and severe calcification was observed in 47.4%. The technical success rate (96.9% versus 94.0%; P=0.102) and the complication rate (6.9% versus 6.6%; P>0.999) were similar between the TAPT and DAPT groups. At 2-year follow-up, the incidence of major adverse limb events (16.6% versus 19.4%; P=0.260) did not differ between the 2 groups. However, the TAPT group showed less minor amputation than the DAPT group (2.0% versus 6.3%; P=0.004). In multivariate analysis, TAPT was an independent predictor of minor amputation (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.354 [95% CI, 0.158-0.794]; P=0.012). Conclusions In patients with diabetes undergoing EVT for peripheral artery disease, TAPT did not decrease the incidence of major adverse limb events but may be associated with a decreased risk of minor amputation.

Perioperative Antiplatelet Strategy in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery Within One Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antiplatelet therapy (APT) for patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery within 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is not yet established. METHODS: Patients who underwent non-cardiac surgery within 1 year after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation were included from a multicenter prospective registry in Korea. The primary endpoint was 30-day net adverse clinical event (NACE), including all-cause death, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and major bleeding events. Covariate adjustment using propensity score was performed. RESULTS: Among 1130 eligible patients, 708 (62.7%) continued APT during non-cardiac surgery. After propensity score adjustment, APT continuation was associated with a lower incidence of NACE (3.7% vs 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.89; P = .019) and MACE (1.1% vs 1.9%; adjusted OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-0.99; P = .046), whereas the incidence of major bleeding events was not different between the 2 APT strategies (1.7% vs 2.6%; adjusted OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.25-1.50; P = .273). CONCLUSIONS: The APT continuation strategy was chosen in a substantial proportion of patients and was associated with the benefit of potentially reducing 30-day NACE and MACE with similar incidence of major bleeding events, compared with APT discontinuation. This study suggests a possible benefit of APT continuation in non-cardiac surgery within 1 year of second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation.

Efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: a post-hoc analysis of the RACING trial.

Background: Moderate-intensity statin role with ezetimibe combination therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been thoroughly investigated, particularly compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy. We aimed to investigate the effect of ezetimibe combination with moderate-intensity statin in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease following PCI. Methods: This was a post-hoc analysis of a subset of patients who underwent PCI in the RACING trial. At 26 centres in South Korea, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) were randomly assigned to receive either moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy (rosuvastatin 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin 20 mg). The prespecified endpoints of the RACING trial were used. The primary endpoint was the 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, and nonfatal stroke. Event rates between the two groups were compared using log-rank tests, and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Cox regression analysis. Consistent with the RACING trial, the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using an intention-to-treatment approach, and the safety endpoints were assessed in the safety population. The RACING trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03044665). Findings: Between Feb 14, 2017, and Dec 18, 2018, 3780 participants were enrolled in the RACING trial. Prior history of PCI was found in 2497 patients (67%, median 64 years, 79% male), and was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.69; p = 0.014). Among patients with prior PCI, moderate-intensity statin therapy with ezetimibe combination versus high-intensity statin therapy did not increase the risk of the primary endpoint (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.24; p = 0.781). The proportion of patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <70 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years was 74%, 76%, and 73%, respectively, in the combination therapy group, and was significantly higher than that in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (57%, 62%, and 59%, respectively, all p < 0.001). Discontinuation of lipid-lowering drugs occurred less frequently in the combination group (4.2% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.001). Interpretation: The effects of ezetimibe combination therapy observed in the RACING trial were consistently preserved among patients with ASCVD following PCI. Ezetimibe combination could be considered as a suitable therapeutic strategy to achieve strict control of LDL-C and reduce drug intolerance in patients who underwent PCI. Funding: Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea.