Intravascular Imaging-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex PCI.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary-artery lesions, as compared with outcomes after angiography-guided PCI, are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label trial in South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with complex coronary-artery lesions in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. In the intravascular imaging group, the choice between intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography was at the operators' discretion. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1639 patients underwent randomization, with 1092 assigned to undergo intravascular imaging-guided PCI and 547 assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.4 to 3.0), a primary end-point event had occurred in 76 patients (cumulative incidence, 7.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 60 patients (cumulative incidence, 12.3%) in the angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.89; P = 0.008). Death from cardiac causes occurred in 16 patients (cumulative incidence, 1.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 17 patients (cumulative incidence, 3.8%) in the angiography group; target-vessel-related myocardial infarction occurred in 38 (cumulative incidence, 3.7%) and 30 (cumulative incidence, 5.6%), respectively; and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization in 32 (cumulative incidence, 3.4%) and 25 (cumulative incidence, 5.5%), respectively. There were no apparent between-group differences in the incidence of procedure-related safety events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with complex coronary-artery lesions, intravascular imaging-guided PCI led to a lower risk of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization than angiography-guided PCI. (Supported by Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03381872).

De-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and individual patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months is the standard of care after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this individual patient-level meta-analysis was to summarise the evidence comparing DAPT de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus continuing DAPT for 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. METHODS: A systematic review and individual patient data (IPD)-level meta-analysis of randomised trials with centrally adjudicated endpoints was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice a day) after short-term DAPT (from 2 weeks to 3 months) versus 12-month DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a coronary drug-eluting stent. Randomised trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT after coronary revascularisation were searched in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and two websites (www.tctmd.com and www.escardio.org) from database inception up to May 20, 2024. Trials that included patients with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulants were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The principal investigators of the eligible trials provided IPD by means of an anonymised electronic dataset. The three ranked coprimary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) tested for non-inferiority in the per-protocol population; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding and all-cause death tested for superiority in the intention-to-treat population. All outcomes are reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates. The non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided α of 0·025 with the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·15 (hazard ratio [HR] scale), followed by the ranked superiority testing at a two-sided α of 0·05. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024506083). FINDINGS: A total of 8361 unique citations were screened, of which 610 records were considered potentially eligible during the screening of titles and abstracts. Of these, six trials that randomly assigned patients to ticagrelor monotherapy or DAPT were identified. De-escalation took place a median of 78 days (IQR 31-92) after intervention, with a median duration of treatment of 334 days (329-365). Among 23 256 patients in the per-protocol population, MACCE occurred in 297 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2·8%) with ticagrelor monotherapy and 332 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3·2%) with DAPT (HR 0·91 [95% CI 0·78-1·07]; p=0·0039 for non-inferiority; τ2<0·0001). Among 24 407 patients in the intention-to-treat population, the risks of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 2·1%; HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·34-0·54]; p<0·0001 for superiority; τ2=0·079) and all-cause death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 1·2%; 0·76 [0·59-0·98]; p=0·034 for superiority; τ2<0·0001) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy. Trial sequential analysis showed strong evidence of non-inferiority for MACCE and superiority for bleeding among the overall and ACS populations (the z-curve crossed the monitoring boundaries or the required information size without crossing the futility boundaries or approaching the null). The treatment effects were heterogeneous by sex for MACCE (p interaction=0·041) and all-cause death (p interaction=0·050), indicating a possible benefit in women with ticagrelor monotherapy, and by clinical presentation for bleeding (p interaction=0·022), indicating a benefit in ACS with ticagrelor monotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Our study found robust evidence that, compared with 12 months of DAPT, de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy does not increase ischaemic risk and reduces the risk of major bleeding, especially in patients with ACS. Ticagrelor monotherapy might also be associated with a mortality benefit, particularly among women, which warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale.

Prognosis after switching to electronic cigarettes following percutaneous coronary intervention: a Korean nationwide study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the increasing popularity of electronic cigarettes (E-cigarettes), the prognostic impact of switching to E-cigarettes in smokers with coronary artery disease who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. METHODS: Using a nationwide cohort from the Korean National Health Insurance database, 17 973 adults (≥20 years) identified as smokers (based on a health screening examination within 3 years before PCI) who underwent health screening within 3 years after PCI were enrolled to determine changes in smoking habits. Patients were classified as continued combustible cigarette users, successful quitters, or switchers to E-cigarettes. The group switching to E-cigarettes was further divided into dual users (using both combustible and E-cigarettes) and those exclusively using E-cigarettes. Primary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite of all-cause death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. RESULTS: Among the total population, 8951 patients (49.8%) continued using combustible cigarettes, 1694 (9.4%) were switched to E-cigarettes, and 7328 (40.7%) successfully quit smoking after PCI. During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, the cumulative incidence of MACE was lower among E-cigarette switchers (10%) or quitters (13.4%) than among continued combustible cigarette users (17%). When continued combustible cigarette users were used as the reference, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for MACE were 0.82 (0.69-0.98) for switchers to E-cigarettes and 0.87 (0.79-0.96) for successful quitters. Compared with dual users, entirely switching to E-cigarettes was associated with a significantly lower MACE risk (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.51-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Among smokers who underwent PCI for coronary artery disease, switching to E-cigarette use (particularly complete transition) or quitting smoking was associated with reduced MACE risk than with continued combustible cigarette use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06338761.

Prognostic Implications of N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding the prognostic implications of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 13,104 patients in the nationwide Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health, 3,083 patients with NSTEMI who underwent PCI were included in the present study. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 3 years, a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned repeat revascularization, and admission for heart failure. NT-proBNP was measured at the time of initial presentation for the management of NSTEMI, and patients were divided into a low (<700 pg/mL; n=1,813) and high (≥700 pg/mL; n=1,270) NT-proBNP group. The high NT-proBNP group had a significantly higher risk of MACE, driven primarily by a higher risk of cardiac death or admission for heart failure. These results were consistent after confounder adjustment by propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NSTEMI who underwent PCI, an initial elevated NT-proBNP concentration was associated with higher risk of MACE at 3 years, driven primarily by higher risks of cardiac death or admission for heart failure. These results suggest that the initial NT-proBNP concentration may have a clinically significant prognostic value in NSTEMI patients undergoing PCI.

Association between intensive care unit nursing grade and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and its cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high workload of cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), there is a paucity of evidence on the association between nurse workforce and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of the ICU nursing grade on mortality and cost-effectiveness in CS. METHODS: A nationwide analysis was performed using the K-NHIS database. Patients diagnosed with CS and admitted to the ICU at tertiary hospitals were enrolled. ICU nursing grade was defined according to the bed-to-nurse ratio: grade1 (bed-to-nurse ratio < 0.5), grade2 (0.5 ≤ bed-to-nurse ratio < 0.63), and grade3 (0.63 ≤ bed-to-nurse ratio < 0.77) or above. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Cost-effective analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Of the 72,950 patients with CS, 27,216 (37.3%) were in ICU nursing grade 1, 29,710 (40.7%) in grade 2, and 16,024 (22.0%) in grade ≥ 3. The adjusted-OR for in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with grade 2 (grade 1 vs. grade 2, 30.6% vs. 37.5%, adjusted-OR 1.14, 95% CI1.09-1.19) and grade ≥ 3 (40.6%) with an adjusted-OR of 1.29 (95% CI 1.23-1.36) than those with grade 1. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of grade1 compared with grade 2 and ≥ 3 was $25,047/year and $42,888/year for hospitalization and $5151/year and $5269/year for 1-year follow-up, suggesting that grade 1 was cost-effective. In subgroup analysis, the beneficial effects of the high-intensity nursing grade on mortality were more prominent in patients who received CPR or multiple vasopressors usage. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with CS, ICU grade 1 with a high-intensity nursing staff was associated with reduced mortality and more cost-effectiveness during hospitalization compared to grade 2 and grade ≥ 3, and its beneficial effects were more pronounced in subjects at high risk of CS.

Optimal Antithrombotic Therapy Beyond 1-Year After Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Currently, non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) monotherapy has been suggested as the optimal antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) beyond one year after coronary revascularization. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between NOAC monotherapy and NOAC plus antiplatelet combination therapy using real-world data. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2020, patients with AF who had received NOACs beyond one year after coronary revascularization were enrolled from Korean national insurance data. We emulated a pragmatic sequence of trials between the NOAC monotherapy and the antiplatelet combination therapy followed by propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: Among 206,407 person-trials from 4,465 individuals, we compared 3,275 pairs of the monotherapy and the matched combination therapy. During a median follow-up of 1.24 years, the incidence rate of MACCE was 19.4% and 20.0% per patient-year in the monotherapy group and the antiplatelet combination group, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.05; P = 0.422). Compared with the antiplatelet combination group, the monotherapy group had a significantly lower incidence rate of major bleeding, defined as intracranial bleeding or gastrointestinal bleeding requiring hospitalization (2.8% vs. 3.6% per patient-year; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97; P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: As an antithrombotic therapy for AF beyond one year after coronary revascularization, NOAC monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of MACCE and a lower risk of major bleeding compared to NOAC plus antiplatelet combination therapy.

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs). METHODS: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). RESULTS: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03068494.

Dual antiplatelet therapy duration after percutaneous coronary intervention in high bleeding risk: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIMS: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) is still debated. The current study, using the totality of existing evidence, evaluated the impact of an abbreviated DAPT regimen in HBR patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to search randomized clinical trials comparing abbreviated [i.e. very-short (1 month) or short (3 months)] with standard (≥6 months) DAPT in HBR patients without indication for oral anticoagulation. A total of 11 trials, including 9006 HBR patients, were included. Abbreviated DAPT reduced major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding [risk ratio (RR): 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.94; I2 = 28%], major bleeding (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99, I2 = 0%), and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95, I2 = 0%) compared with standard DAPT. No difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis was observed. Results were consistent, irrespective of HBR definition and clinical presentation. CONCLUSION: In HBR patients undergoing PCI, a 1- or 3-month abbreviated DAPT regimen was associated with lower bleeding and cardiovascular mortality, without increasing ischaemic events, compared with a ≥6-month DAPT regimen. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021284004.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography-guided strategy in acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a randomized trial.

AIMS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-infarct-related artery reduces death or MI. However, whether selective PCI guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is superior to routine PCI guided by angiography alone is unclear. The current trial sought to compare FFR-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI for non-infarct-related artery lesions among patients with acute MI and multivessel disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with acute MI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful PCI of the infarct-related artery were randomly assigned to either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis of >50%) for non-infarct-related artery lesions. The primary end point was a composite of time to death, MI, or repeat revascularization. A total of 562 patients underwent randomization. Among them, 60.0% underwent immediate PCI for non-infarct-related artery lesions and 40.0% were treated by a staged procedure during the same hospitalization. PCI was performed for non-infarct-related artery in 64.1% in the FFR-guided PCI group and 97.1% in the angiography-guided PCI group, and resulted in significantly fewer stent used in the FFR-guided PCI group (2.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.5 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years (interquartile range: 2.7-4.1 years), the primary end point occurred in 18 patients of 284 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group and in 40 of 278 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group (7.4% vs. 19.7%; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.75; P = 0.003). The death occurred in five patients (2.1%) in the FFR-guided PCI group and in 16 patients (8.5%) in the angiography-guided PCI group; MI in seven (2.5%) and 21 (8.9%), respectively; and unplanned revascularization in 10 (4.3%) and 16 (9.0%), respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute MI and multivessel coronary artery disease, a strategy of selective PCI using FFR-guided decision-making was superior to a strategy of routine PCI based on angiographic diameter stenosis for treatment of non-infarct-related artery lesions regarding the risk of death, MI, or repeat revascularization.

Differential Prognostic Impact of IABP-SHOCK II Scores According to Treatment Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Coronary Syndrome: From the RESCUE Registry.

Background: Early risk stratification is necessary for optimal determination of the treatment strategy in cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Therefore, we evaluated the prognostic impact of an intra-aortic balloon pump on the cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK) II score according to the treatment strategies in ACS complicated by CS using the RESCUE (REtrospective and prospective observational Study to investigate Clinical oUtcomes and Efficacy of left ventricular assist device for Korean patients with cardiogenic shock) registry. Methods: The RESCUE registry contains multicenter observational retrospective and prospective cohorts that include 1247 patients with CS from 12 centers in Korea. A total of 865 patients with ACS complicated by CS were selected and stratified into low-, intermediate- and high-risk categories according to their IABP-SHOCK II scores and then according to treatment: non-mechanical support, IABP, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenators (ECMOs). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during follow-up. Results: The observed mortality rates for the low-, intermediate-, and high-IABP-SHOCK II score risk categories were 28.8%, 52.4%, and 69.8%, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients in the non-mechanical support and IABP groups showed an increasingly elevated risk of all-cause mortality as their risk scores increased from low to high. In the ECMO group, the risk of all-cause mortality did not differ between the intermediate- and high-risk categories (HR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.81-1.81, p = 0.33). The IABP-SHOCK II scores for the non-mechanical support and IABP groups showed a better predictive performance (area under curve [AUC] = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.65-0.76) for mortality compared with the EMCO group (AUC = 0.61, 95% CI 0.54-0.67; p-value for comparison = 0.02). Conclusions: Risk stratification using the IABP-SHOCK II score is useful for predicting mortality in ACS complicated by CS when patients are treated with non-mechanical support or IABP. However, its prognostic value may be unsatisfactory in severe cases where patients require ECMOs.

Impact of diabetes on long-term outcomes of bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention. An analysis from the BIFURCAT registry.

BACKGROUND: It is still unclear the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) in complex coronary lesions treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) which themselves are at increased incidence of adverse events. METHODS: BIFURCAT registry encompassed patients treated with PCI for coronary bifurcation lesion from the COBIS III and the RAIN registry. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major cardiovascular adverse event (MACE), a composite and mutual exclusive of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI) or target-lesion revascularization (TLR). A total of 5537 patients were included in the analysis and 1834 (33%) suffered from DM. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 21 months, diabetic patients had a higher incidence of MACE (17% vs. 9%, p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (9% vs. 4%, p < 0.001), TLR (5% vs. 3%, p = 0.001), MI (4% vs. 2%, p < 0.001), and stent thrombosis (ST) (2% vs. 1%, p = 0.007). After multivariate analysis, diabetes remained significantly associated with MACE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.37; confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.65; p = 0.001), all-cause death (HR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.24-2.19, p = 0.001), TLR (HR: 1.45; CI: 1.03-2.04; p = 0.031) and ST (HR: 1.73, CI: 1.04-2.88; p = 0.036), but not with MI (HR: 1.34; CI: 0.93-1.92; p = 0.11). Among diabetics, chronic kidney disease (HR: 2.99; CI: 2.21-4.04), baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (HR: 0.98; CI: 0.97-0.99), femoral access (HR: 1.62; CI: 1.23-2.15), left main coronary artery (HR: 1.44; CI: 1.06-1.94), main branch diameter (HR: 0.79; CI: 0.66-0.94) and final kissing balloon (HR: 0.70; CI: 0.52-0.93) were independent predictors of MACE at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DM treated with PCI for coronary bifurcations have a worse prognosis due to higher incidence of MACE, all-cause mortality, TLR and ST compared to the non-diabetics.

Moderate-Intensity Statins Plus Ezetimibe vs. High-Intensity Statins After Coronary Revascularization: A Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Whether moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe could be an alternative to high-intensity statins in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is unclear. We compared the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in patients receiving moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe vs. high-intensity statins after a coronary revascularization procedure using data from a large cohort study. METHOD: Population-based cohort study using nationwide medical insurance data from Korea. Study participants (n = 20,070) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, and received moderate-intensity statins (atorvastatin 10-20 mg or rosuvastatin 5-10 mg) plus ezetimibe (n = 922) or high-intensity statins (atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 20 mg; n = 19,148). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for stroke, or revascularization. RESULTS: At 12 months, the incidence rates of the primary outcome were 138.0 vs. 154.0 per 1000 person-years in the moderate-intensity stains plus ezetimibe and the high-intensity statins group, respectively. The fully adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for the primary outcome was 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.42; p = 0.43). The multivariable-adjusted HR for a composite of cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization for MI, or hospitalization for stroke was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74-1.47; p = 0.80). During follow-up, the proportion of patients maintaining their initial lipid-lowering therapy was significantly higher in the moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe group than in the high-intensity statins group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing a coronary revascularization procedure who received moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe showed similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events as patients who received high-intensity statins.

Sex-Based Outcomes of P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy After Three Months of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the SMART-CHOICE trial, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after three months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) achieved clinical outcomes comparable to those of 12 months of DAPT. Nonetheless, the effects of sex on these outcomes remain unknown. METHODS: This open-label, non-inferiority, randomized study, conducted in 33 hospitals in South Korea, included 2,993 patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. Patients were randomly assigned to receive DAPT (aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor) for three months then P2Y12 inhibitor alone for nine months, or DAPT for the entire 12 months. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) 12 months after the index procedure. The bleeding endpoints were Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding types 2 to 5. RESULTS: Of the patients, 795 (26.6%) were women, who were older and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia than men. The sexes exhibited comparable primary endpoints (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.55; P = 0.770) and bleeding endpoints (adjusted HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.63-1.81; P = 0.811). P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs DAPT was associated with lower risk of BARC type 2 to 5 bleeding in women (adjusted HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16-0.98; P = 0.045) but the difference was not statistically significant when using the Bonferroni correction. The primary endpoints were similar between treatment groups in both sexes. CONCLUSION: In both sexes undergoing PCI, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after three months of DAPT achieved similar risks of the primary endpoints and the bleeding events compared with prolonged DAPT. Therefore, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal with ongoing P2Y12 inhibitors may be comparable in women and men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02079194.

Comparison Between Fimasartan Versus Other Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients With Heart Failure After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUNDS: Fimasartan is the most recently developed, potent, and long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). However, data are limited regarding treatment effects of fimasartan in patients with heart failure. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2016, patients who underwent coronary revascularization for myocardial infarction (MI) with heart failure and prescription of ARB at hospital discharge were enrolled from the Korean nationwide medical insurance data. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients receiving fimasartan and those receiving other ARBs (candesartan, valsartan, losartan, telmisartan, olmesartan, and irbesartan). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke. RESULTS: Of 2,802 eligible patients, fimasartan was prescribed to 124 patients (4.4%). During a median follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 1.0-3.9), 613 events of the primary outcome occurred. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between patients receiving fimasartan and those receiving other ARBs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-1.45). Compared with patients receiving other ARBs, those receiving fimasartan had comparable incidence of all-cause death (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.30-1.63), recurrent MI (adjusted HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.49-3.34), hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27-1.84), and stroke (adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.18-1.96). CONCLUSION: In this nationwide cohort, fimasartan, compared with other ARBs, had comparable treatment effects for a composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke in patients with heart failure after MI.

Safety and Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice.

BACKGROUND: The risk of device thrombosis and device-oriented clinical outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was reported to be significantly higher than with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, optimal device implantation may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving BVS. The current study evaluated mid-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS with meticulous device optimization under intravascular imaging guidance. METHODS: The SMART-REWARD and PERSPECTIVE-PCI registries in Korea prospectively enrolled 390 patients with BVS and 675 patients with DES, respectively. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years and the secondary major endpoint was patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) at 2 years. RESULTS: Patient-level pooled analysis evaluated 1,003 patients (377 patients with BVS and 626 patients with DES). Mean scaffold diameter per lesion was 3.24 ± 0.30 mm in BVS group. Most BVSs were implanted with pre-dilatation (90.9%), intravascular imaging guidance (74.9%), and post-dilatation (73.1%) at proximal to mid segment (81.9%) in target vessel. Patients treated with BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF (2.9% vs. 3.7%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.283, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487-3.378, P = 0.615) and 2-year POCO (4.5% vs. 5.9%, adjusted HR, 1.413, 95% CI, 0.663-3.012, P = 0.370) than those with DES. The rate of 2-year definite or probable device thrombosis (0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.424) was also similar. The sensitivity analyses consistently showed comparable risk of TVF and POCO between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: With meticulous device optimization under imaging guidance and avoidance of implantation in small vessels, BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF and device thrombosis with DES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02601404, NCT04265443.

Coronary Microcirculatory Dysfunction and Acute Cellular Rejection After Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Acute cellular rejection is a major determinant of mortality and retransplantation after heart transplantation. We sought to evaluate the prognostic implications of coronary microcirculatory dysfunction assessed by index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) for the risk of acute cellular rejection after heart transplantation. METHODS: The present study prospectively enrolled 154 heart transplant recipients who underwent scheduled coronary angiography and invasive coronary physiological assessment 1 month after transplantation. IMR is microcirculatory resistance under maximal hyperemia. By measuring hyperemic mean transit time using 3 injections (4 mL each) of room-temperature saline under maximal hyperemia, IMR was calculated as hyperemic distal coronary pressure×hyperemic mean transit time. The primary end point was biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection of grade ≥2R during 2 years of follow-up after transplantation and was compared by using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression according to IMR. The incremental prognostic value of IMR, in addition to the model with clinical factors, was evaluated by comparison of C-index, net reclassification index, and integrated discrimination index. RESULTS: The mean age of recipients was 51.2±13.1 years (81.2% male), and the cumulative incidence of acute cellular rejection was 19.0% at 2 years. Patients with acute cellular rejection had significantly higher IMR values at 1 month than those without acute cellular rejection (23.1±8.6 versus 16.8±11.1, P=0.002). IMR was significantly associated with the risk of acute cellular rejection (per 5-U increase: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.04-1.34], P=0.011) and the optimal cutoff value of IMR to predict acute cellular rejection was 15. Patients with IMR≥15 showed significantly higher risk of acute cellular rejection than those with IMR<15 (34.4% versus 3.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 15.3 [95% CI 3.6-65.7], P<0.001). Addition of IMR to clinical variables showed significantly higher discriminant and reclassification ability for risk of acute cellular rejection (C-index 0.87 versus 0.74, P<0.001; net reclassification index 1.05, P<0.001; integrated discrimination index 0.20, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary microcirculatory dysfunction assessed by IMR measured early after heart transplantation showed significant association with the risk of acute cellular rejection. In addition to surveillance endomyocardial biopsy, early stratification using IMR could be a clinically useful tool to identify patients at higher risk of future acute cellular rejection after heart transplantation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02798731.

Association Between Preexisting Elevated Left Ventricular Filling Pressure and Clinical Outcomes of Future Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Because no data were available regarding the effect of preexisting left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), we evaluated whether preexisting high LVFP can determine outcomes of subsequent AMI events.Methods and Results:Among 399,613 subjects who underwent echocardiography for various reason from August 2004 to June 2019, 231 had experienced subsequent AMI and were stratified according to preexisting LVFP: low LVFP (E/e' ≤14) and high LVFP (E/e' >14). The primary outcome was cardiac death at 30 days and 1 year after AMI. Overall, 19.5% had high LVFP prior to AMI events. Preexisting high LVFP was associated with an increased risk of cardiac death at 30 days (3.8% vs. 11.6%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 4.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-17.24, P=0.026) and 1 year after AMI (7.9% vs. 35.9%; adjusted HR 4.14, 95% CI 1.79-9.57, P<0.001). Preexisting E/e' as a continuous value was significantly associated with 1-year risk of cardiac death (adjusted HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15, P=0.007). Follow-up echocardiography showed that patients with high LVFP did not show improvement in systolic or diastolic function. CONCLUSIONS: Preexisting high LVFP was associated with poor clinical course and 1-year cardiac death after subsequent AMI, as well as no improvement in systolic or diastolic function.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Its Predictors Between the 1- and 2-Stent Strategy in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions　- A Baseline Clinical and Lesion Characteristic-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Differences in the impact of the 1- or 2-stent strategy in similar coronary bifurcation lesion conditions are not well understood. This study investigated the clinical outcomes and its predictors between 1 or 2 stents in propensity score-matched (PSM) complex bifurcation lesions.Methods and Results: We analyzed the data of patients with bifurcation lesions, obtained from a multicenter registry of 2,648 patients (median follow up, 53 months). The patients were treated by second generation drug-eluting stents (DESs). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). PSM was performed to balance baseline clinical and angiographic discrepancies between 1 and 2 stents. After PSM (N=333 from each group), the 2-stent group had more TLRs (hazard ratio [HR] 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-6.97, P=0.005) and fewer hard endpoints (composite of cardiac death and TVMI; HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19-1.01, P=0.054), which resulted in a similar TLF rate (HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.83-2.37, P=0.209) compared to the 1-stent group. Compared with 1-stent, the 2-stent technique was more frequently associated with less TLF in the presence of main vessel (pinteraction=0.008) and side branch calcification (pinteraction=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The 2-stent strategy should be considered to reduce hard clinical endpoints in complex bifurcation lesions, particularly those with calcifications.

Ten-Year Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Disease: Extended Follow-Up of the PRECOMBAT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term comparative outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents and coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease are highly debated. METHODS: In the PRECOMBAT trial (Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease), patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo PCI with sirolimus-eluting stents (n=300) or CABG (n=300) in 13 hospitals in Korea from April 2004 to August 2009. The follow-up was extended to at least 10 years for all patients (median, 11.3 years). The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization). RESULTS: At 10 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 29.8% of the PCI group and in 24.7% of the CABG group (hazard ratio [HR] with PCI vs CABG, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.93-1.69]). The 10-year incidence of the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (18.2% vs 17.5%; HR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.70-1.44]) and all-cause mortality (14.5% vs 13.8%; HR 1.13 [95% CI, 0.75-1.70]) were not significantly different between the PCI and CABG groups. Ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization was more frequent after PCI than after CABG (16.1% vs 8.0%; HR 1.98 [95% CI, 1.21-3.21). CONCLUSIONS: Ten-year follow-up of the PRECOMBAT trial of patients with left main coronary artery disease randomized to PCI or CABG did not demonstrate significant difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events. Because the study was underpowered, the results should be considered hypothesis-generating, highlighting the need for further research. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03871127 and NCT00422968.

Differential Prognostic Implications of Vasoactive Inotropic Score for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock According to Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support.

OBJECTIVES: To identify whether the prognostic implications of Vasoactive Inotropic Score according to use of mechanical circulatory support differ in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. DESIGN: A multicenter retrospective and prospective observational cohort study. SETTING/PATIENT: The REtrospective and prospective observational Study to investigate Clinical oUtcomes and Efficacy registry includes 1,247 patients with cardiogenic shock from 12 centers in Korea. A total of 836 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock were finally selected, and the study population was stratified by quartiles of Vasoactive Inotropic Score (< 10, 10-30, 30-90, and > 90) for the present study. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality and secondary endpoint was follow-up mortality. Among the study population, 326 patients (39.0%) received medical treatment alone, 218 (26.1%) received intra-aortic balloon pump, and 292 (34.9%) received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In-hospital mortality occurred in 305 patients (36.5%) and was significantly higher in patients with higher Vasoactive Inotropic Score (15.6%, 20.8%, 40.2%, and 67.3%, for < 10, 10-30, 30-90, and > 90; p < 0.001). Vasoactive Inotropic Score showed better ability to predict in-hospital mortality in acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock who received medical treatment alone (area under the curve: 0.797; 95% CI, 0.728-0.865) than in those who received intra-aortic balloon pump (area under the curve, 0.704; 95% CI, 0.625-0.783) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (area under the curve, 0.644; 95% CI, 0.580-0.709). The best cutoff value of Vasoactive Inotropic Score for the prediction of in-hospital mortality also differed according to the use of mechanical circulatory support (16.5, 40.1, and 84.0 for medical treatment alone, intra-aortic balloon pump, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, respectively). There was a significant interaction between Vasoactive Inotropic Score as a continuous value and the use of mechanical circulatory support including intra-aortic balloon pump (interaction-p = 0.006) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (interaction-p < 0.001) for all-cause mortality during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: High Vasoactive Inotropic Score was associated with significantly higher in-hospital and follow-up mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The predictive value of Vasoactive Inotropic Score for mortality was significantly higher in acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock treated by medical treatment alone than in those treated by mechanical circulatory support such as intra-aortic balloon pump or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.