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.

Successful retrieval of ruptured stent balloon catheter during percutaneous coronary intervention.

An 82-year-old woman was admitted for non-ST elevation myocardial infarction.

Cardiovascular outcomes between dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin in patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been demonstrated to decrease cardiovascular adverse events. However, there is little real-world clinical evidence regarding a direct comparison between dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). HYPOTHESIS: A difference in the cardiovascular efficancy of dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin in DM patients was anticipated, aiming to guide the optimal choice of SGLT2 inhibitors based on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: From 2014 to 2020, a total of 1549 patients with DM who were prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin were retrospectively enrolled. We categorized the study population into two groups: dapagliflozin (n = 981) and empagliflozin group (n = 568). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure (HF) over a 3-year period. RESULTS: Propensity-score matching was performed (537 patients in each group). The mean age and hemoglobin A1c were 58.2 ± 13.0 years and 8.4 ± 1.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin groups in the risk of MACE (3.7% vs. 4.8%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-2.35; p = 0.349). Furthermore, there were no differences between the two groups in secondary endpoints including all-cause death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for HF. Prior MI and history of HF were independent predictors of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin and empagliflozin showed no significant difference of real-world clinical cardiovascular outcomes in patients with DM over a 3-year period. Further large randomized clinical trials will be warranted for better evaluation.

Impact of Guideline-Directed Management Strategies for Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Control in Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

There are little direct comparative evidences of strategies between ≥50% and the absolute target goal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level <55 mg/100 ml for the patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to investigate the clinical impact of different strategies between 2 groups of patients who underwent PCI. A total of 3,104 patients with previous PCI were retrospectively enrolled from 2014 to 2020 at Yeungnam University Medical Center. The study population was stratified into 2 groups based on whether the LDL-C level was <55 mg/100 ml at the 1-year mark or not. Furthermore, the 50% reduction rate of LDL-C was also categorized based on whether it had decreased by ≥50% from the initial LDL-C level at the 1-year mark. The primary end point was 3-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) which were defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure, or nonfatal stroke. There was no significant difference between the LDL <55 mg/100 ml group and the LDL ≥55 mg/100 ml group in the risk of MACEs (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.38, p = 0.690) after propensity score matching. However, the group that achieved ≥50% reduction of LDL-C from baseline LDL-C level showed a significant reduction in the occurrence of MACEs in the subgroup of LDL-C level ≥55 mg/100 ml (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.89, p = 0.025) compared with the group with <50% reduction of LDL-C. In all patients, the achievement rate of target LDL-C <55 mg/100 ml and more than 50% reduction from baseline was 17.2%. In conclusion, guideline-directed management strategy of ≥50% reduction of LDL-C from the baseline will be needed to reduce the incidence of MACEs in patients with LDL-C ≥55 mg/100 ml who underwent PCI. Additional efforts to increase the target goal achievement rate of LDL-C are warranted.