Long-Term Comparison of Platinum Chromium Everolimus-Eluting Stent vs. Cobalt Chromium Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent　- 3-Year Outcomes From the HOST-ASSURE Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the long-term outcome of platinum chromium-based everolimus-eluting stents (PtCr-EES) vs. cobalt chromium-based zotarolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-ZES).Methods and Results:A total of 3,755 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomized 2:1 to PtCr-EES or CoCr-ZES, and 96.0% of patients completed the 3-year clinical follow-up. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). At 3 years, TLF occurred in 5.3% and in 5.4% of the PtCr-EES and CoCr-ZES groups, respectively (hazard ratio 0.978; 95% confidence interval 0.730-1.310, P=0.919). There were no significant differences in the individual components of TLF. Routine angiographic follow-up was performed in 38.9% of the total patients. In a landmark analysis of the subgroup that had follow-up angiography, the clinically-driven TLR rate of CoCr-ZES was significantly higher than PtCr-EES group during the angiography follow-up period (P=0.009). Overall definite and probable stent thrombosis rates were very low in both groups (0.5% vs. 0.6%, P=0.677). CONCLUSIONS: PtCr-EES and CoCr-ZES had similar and excellent long-term outcomes in both efficacy and safety after PCI in an all-comer population.

The clinical impact of sex differences on ischemic postconditioning during primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a POST (the effects of postconditioning on myocardial reperfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) substudy.

The POST (the effects of postconditioning on myocardial reperfusion in patients with ST-Segment elevation myocardial infarction) study showed that ischemic postconditioning did not improve myocardial reperfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, it has not been determined whether postconditioning is effective in women. This study sought to evaluate the impact of sex differences on ischemic postconditioning during the primary PCI. We analyzed clinical outcomes at 1 year in the 537 men and 163 women with STEMI, who were randomized to the postconditioning or to the conventional PCI group. Women were older, had higher rates of hypertension, were less likely to be current smokers, and had longer symptom-to-reperfusion time. The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: a composite of death, myocardial infarction, severe heart failure, stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization) at 1 year was higher in women compared to men (9.8% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.044). MACE was significantly higher in women compared to men in the postconditioning group (12.2% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.042), but not in the conventional PCI group (7.9% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.391). However, women was not an independent predictor after adjusting baseline risk factors, angiographic and procedural parameters (HR 2.67, 95% CI 0.68-10.5, p = 0.158). Despite women having more adverse clinical characteristics, their prognosis was similar to men in the conventional group. Although women showed a higher rate of the MACE compared to men, women were not an independent predictor in the postconditioning group.

Long-term effects of ischemic postconditioning on clinical outcomes: 1-year follow-up of the POST randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Effects of Postconditioning on Myocardial Reperfusion in Patients with ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (POST) trial, ischemic postconditioning failed to improve myocardial reperfusion. However, long-term effects of ischemic postconditioning on clinical outcomes are not known in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: A total of 700 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned to the postconditioning group or the conventional primary PCI group in a 1:1 ratio. Postconditioning was performed immediately after restoration of coronary flow by balloon occlusion 4 times for 1 minute. Complete follow-up data for major clinical events at 1 year were available in 695 patients (99.3%), and analyses were done by the intention to treat principle. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, severe heart failure, or stent thrombosis at 1 year. RESULTS: At 1 year, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, severe heart failure, or stent thrombosis occurred in 21 patients (6.1%) in the postconditioning group and 16 patients (4.6%) in the conventional PCI group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% CI 0.69-2.53, P = .40). The risk of death (4.9% vs 3.7%, HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.64-2.71, P = .46), heart failure (2.6% vs 2.3%, HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.44-2.94, P = .80), and stent thrombosis (2.3% vs 1.7%, HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.46-3.85, P = .59) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic postconditioning does not seem to improve the 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI.

Ischemic postconditioning during primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the effects of postconditioning on myocardial reperfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (POST) randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic postconditioning has been reported to reduce infarct size in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. However, cardioprotective effects of postconditioning have not been demonstrated in a large-scale trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point trial. A total of 700 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction within 12 hours after symptom onset were randomly assigned to the postconditioning group or to the conventional primary PCI group in a 1:1 ratio. Postconditioning was performed immediately after restoration of coronary flow as follows: The angioplasty balloon was positioned at the culprit lesion and inflated 4 times for 1 minute with low-pressure (<6 atm) inflations, each separated by 1 minute of deflation. The primary end point was complete ST-segment resolution (percentage resolution of ST-segment elevation >70%) measured at 30 minutes after PCI. Complete ST-segment resolution occurred in 40.5% of patients in the postconditioning group and 41.5% of patients in the conventional PCI group (absolute difference, -1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -8.4 to 6.4; P=0.79). The rate of myocardial blush grade of 0 or 1 and the rate of major adverse cardiac events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, severe heart failure, or stent thrombosis) at 30 days did not differ significantly between the postconditioning group and the conventional PCI group (17.2% versus 22.4% [P=0.20] and 4.3% versus 3.7% [P=0.70], respectively). CONCLUSION: Ischemic postconditioning did not improve myocardial reperfusion in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI with current standard practice.

Treatment patterns and their outcomes of acute aortic intramural hematoma in real world: multicenter registry for aortic intramural hematoma.

BACKGROUND: Intramural hematoma of the aorta (IMH), a variant of classic aortic dissection, shows very dynamic process in the early phase. The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of patients with acute aortic IMH from real world registry data. METHODS: We analyzed 165 consecutive patients with acute IMH from five medical centers in Korea. All patients were divided into two groups; type A (n = 61, 37.0%) and type B (n = 104, 63.0%) according to the Stanford classification. Clinical outcomes and morphological evolution by CT were analyzed for 2 years. RESULTS: Most of the patients (77.0% of type A and 99.0% of type B, P < 0.001) were treated medically during their initial hospitalization. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (4.9% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.671) and 2-year mortality (13.1% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.765) between two groups. During the 2-year follow up period, progression to aortic dissection (18.0% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.037) and surgical treatment (29.5% vs. 2.9%, P < 0.001) were higher in type A. For the type A patients, there were no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (7.1% of surgery vs. 4.3% of medical, P = 0.428) and 2-year mortality (7.1% of surgery vs. 14.9% of medical, P = 0.450) in terms of initial treatment strategy. CONCLUSION: For real world practice in Korea, most of IMH patients were treated medically at presentation and showed favorable outcomes. Thus, even in type A acute IMH, early medical treatment with alternative surgical conversion for selected, complicated cases would be a favorable treatment option.

Effectiveness and Safety of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Valsartan and Rosuvastatin (Rovatitan® Tablet) in Patients with Concomitant Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia: An Observational Study.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of a fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin and valsartan (Rovatitan®) in Korean patients with concomitant hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Patients and Methods: A total of 1008 eligible patients with concomitant hypertension and hyperlipidemia were enrolled and treated for 12 weeks. Both upward and downward drug dose titrations were allowed based on the investigator's discretion. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the study drug, defined by the percentage of patients achieving the blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment targets. Additionally, regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the factors associated with the effectiveness and safety of the study drug. Of the 1008 patients enrolled in the study, 911 were analyzed for clinical effectiveness. Results: At 12 weeks, 84.6% and 75.9% of patients treated with the study drug achieved their BP and LDL-C targets, respectively, and 64.8% of patients achieved both targets simultaneously. Furthermore, the percentage of patients who achieved their BP and LDL-C treatment targets demonstrated a trend across the respective risk groups; the higher the risk group, the lower the success of attaining the respective target. This trend was also observed regardless of the prior antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering treatments. According to regression analysis, poor metabolic profiles, including a higher body mass index (BMI) and higher BP and LDL-C levels at baseline, were significantly associated with treatment failure for BP. Among the 1005 patients included in the safety analysis, 17 patients (1.7%) experienced serious adverse events; however, none were considered related to the study drug. Conclusion: The study drug used for the treatment of concomitant hypertension and hyperlipidemia in a real-world setting was effective and was well tolerated. Therefore, the study drug is suggested as a good alternative to increase patient convenience and compliance, particularly in those taking multiple medications.

Prasugrel-Based De-Escalation in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome According to Renal Function.

Background: Patients with coronary artery disease and impaired renal function are at higher risk for both bleeding and ischemic adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objectives: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of a prasugrel-based de-escalation strategy in patients with impaired renal function. Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS study. Patients with available estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (n = 2,311) were categorized into 3 groups. (high eGFR: >90 mL/min; intermediate eGFR: 60 to 90 mL/min; and low eGFR: <60 mL/min). The end points were bleeding outcomes (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or higher), ischemic outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, repeated revascularization, and ischemic stroke), and net adverse clinical event (including any clinical event) at 1-year follow-up. Results: Prasugrel de-escalation was beneficial regardless of baseline renal function (P for interaction = 0.508). The relative reduction in bleeding risk from prasugrel de-escalation was higher in the low eGFR group than in both the intermediate and high eGFR groups (relative reductions, respectively: 64% (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15-0.83) vs 50% (HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.90) and 52% (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.21-1.13) (P for interaction = 0.646). Ischemic risk from prasgurel de-escalation was not significant in all eGFR groups (HR: 1.18 [95% CI: 0.47-2.98], HR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.53-1.69], and HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.26-1.39]) (P for interaction = 0.119). Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving PCI, prasugrel dose de-escalation was beneficial regardless of the baseline renal function.

Comparison of Antiplatelet Monotherapies After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention According to Clinical, Ischemic, and Bleeding Risks.

BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel was superior to aspirin monotherapy in secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefits of clopidogrel across high-risk subgroups METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of coronary artery diseases-EXtended Antiplatelet Monotherapy) trial that randomly assigned patients who were event free for 6 to 18 months post-PCI on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to clopidogrel or aspirin monotherapy. Two clinical risk scores were used for risk stratification: the DAPT score and the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS 2°P) (the sum of age ≥75 years, diabetes, hypertension, current smoking, peripheral artery disease, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, heart failure, and renal dysfunction). The primary composite endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission because of acute coronary syndrome, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥3) at 2 years after randomization. RESULTS: Among 5,403 patients, clopidogrel monotherapy showed a lower rate of the primary composite endpoint than aspirin monotherapy (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.90). The benefit of clopidogrel over aspirin was consistent regardless of TRS 2°P (high TRS 2°P [≥3] group: HR: 0.65 [95% CI: 0.44-0.96]; and low TRS 2°P [<3] group: HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.60-0.99]) (P for interaction = 0.454) and regardless of DAPT score (high DAPT score [≥2] group: HR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.46-1.00]; and low DAPT score [<2] group: HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.59-0.96]) (P for interaction = 0.662). The association was similar for the individual outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effect of clopidogrel over aspirin monotherapy was consistent regardless of clinical risk or relative ischemic and bleeding risks compared with aspirin monotherapy. (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis- EXtended Antiplatelet Monotherapy [HOST-EXAM]; NCT02044250).

Randomized, multicenter, parallel, open, phase 4 study to compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin/amlodipine polypill versus atorvastatin/amlodipine polypill in hypertension patient with dyslipidemia.

The authors performed this study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin (RSV)/amlodipine (AML) polypill compared with those of atorvastatin (ATV)/AML polypill. We included 259 patients from 21 institutions in Korea. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, or ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of the RSV 10.20 mg/AML 5 mg via percentage changes in LDL-C after 8 weeks of treatment, compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. There was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (full analysis set [FAS]: -7.08%, 95% CI: -11.79 to -2.38, p = .0034, per-protocol analysis set [PPS]: -6.97%, 95% CI: -11.76 to -2.19, p = .0046). Also, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (FAS: -10.13%, 95% CI: -15.41 to -4.84, p = .0002, PPS: -10.96%, 95% CI: -15.98 to -5.93, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the adverse events rates between RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, and ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg. In conclusion, while maintaining safety, RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg more effectively reduced LDL-C compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg (Clinical trial: NCT03951207).

Apnea-hypopnea Index is Correlated with Pulse Rate in Patients with Sleep-related Breathing Disorder without Hypertension, Cardiovascular Disease, or Diabetes Mellitus.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the mean pulse rate (PR) and mean blood pressure (BP) between patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and those with simple snoring (SS) during a 24-hour period, and to investigate the correlation between apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), PR, and BP in sleep-related breathing disorder (SRBD) patients with and without hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM), and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Methods: Ninety SRBD patients underwent full-night polysomnography, and ambulatory BP and PR were monitored for 24 hours. Participants were classified into OSA (AHI ≥ 5) and control (SS) (AHI < 5) groups, and BP and PR were compared. Participants were also divided into groups with and without hypertension, CVDs, or DM to analyze the correlation between AHI, BP, and PR in each group. Results: Mean PRs during the daytime period and during the whole 24-hour period in the OSA group were significantly higher than those in the SS group after controlling for potential confounders. No significant difference was observed in mean BP between the groups. Partial correlation analysis after controlling for confounders showed significant correlation between AHI and PR during daytime and the 24-hour period in participants without hypertension, DM, or CVDs, but not in participants with these conditions. Conclusion: The significant differences and correlations only in PR (not in BP) found in this study suggest that PR could be an early marker for SRBD in individuals without comorbidities, and that an increased sympathetic tone could be responsible for future occurrence of CVD.

Erratum: Correction of Text in the Article "Prasugrel-based De-Escalation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With STEMI".

This corrects the article on p. 304 in vol. 52, PMID: 35129316.

Prasugrel-based De-Escalation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With STEMI.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. RESULTS: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48-2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). CONCLUSIONS: Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.

Evaluation of myocardial bridge with multidetector computed tomography.

BACKGROUND: The myocardial bridge (MB) is an intramural segment of coronary artery that is covered with myocardial tissue. The current diagnostic methods are coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound and intracoronary Doppler, which are all invasive modalities. In this study, multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) was used to detect and evaluate the anatomical properties of the MB. METHODS AND RESULTS: The 607 patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease underwent 64-slice MDCT. MB was diagnosed when an intramural segment of coronary artery was visualized on axial and multiplanar reconstruction images. The prevalence, length, myocardial thickness, and location were evaluated. Of the 607 patients, 39 (6.42%) had a MB. In 20 patients (52.6%), the MB was located in the mid left anterior descending artery. The length of tunneled artery was a mean 16.3 mm, from 6.9 mm to 30 mm, and the maximum thickness of the myocardial tissue was between 0.5 mm and 3.9 mm, with a mean of 1.8 mm. The length of the MB correlated significantly with thickness (P=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of MB and its anatomical properties can be evaluated with MDCT, which might be a useful and noninvasive method of detecting this variant. (Circ J 2010; 74: 137 - 141).

Early efficacy and safety of statin therapy in Korean patients with hypercholesterolemia: Daegu and Gyeongbuk Statin Registry.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To date, prospective data are limited on efficacy and safety profiles of statin therapy in Korean hypercholesterolemic patients. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate the practice patterns of statin therapy and its efficacy and safety through the prospective Daegu and Gyeongbuk statin registry. METHODS: Statin naïve patients who were prescribed statins according to the criteria of Korean Guidelines for Management of Dyslipidemia were enrolled. Clinical and laboratory evaluations were performed at baseline and at week 8, where the efficacy was assessed with the same guidelines. RESULTS: Of 908 patients, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were most frequently prescribed statins (63.1% and 29.3%, respectively). High intensity statins (atorvastatin 40 mg or rosuvastatin 20 mg) were prescribed in 24.7% of all patients and in 79.5% of high and very high risk groups. The total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels decreased from 203.7 ± 43.0 to 140.6 ± 28.6 mg/dL and 134.4 ± 35.7 to 79.5 ± 21.3 mg/dL, respectively. The achievement rate of the LDL target goal was 98.6% in low risk, 95.0% in moderate risk, 88.1% in high risk, and 42.1% in very high risk patients (59.7% in overall). There was no significant difference in the efficacy between atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Adverse events were observed in 12.0% of patients and led to 1.4% of treatment cessation. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of the usual starting dose of statins in daily practice was relatively insufficient for Korean hypercholesterolemic patients with high or very high risks. Short-term adverse events of statin therapy were not common in Korean patients with a low discontinuation rate.

Efficacy and Safety of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Candesartan and Rosuvastatin on Blood Pressure and Cholesterol in Patients With Hypertension and Hypercholesterolemia: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel Phase III Clinical Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the blood pressure-lowering and cholesterol-lowering effects of a fixed-dose combination therapy using candesartan (CND)/rosuvastatin (RSV) compared with CND or RSV monotherapy in patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: This study was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. A total of 394 patients were screened. After a 4-week run-in period, 219 of these patients with hypertension and primary hypercholesterolemia were randomized. Patients received 1 of 3 regimens for 8 weeks: (1) CND 32 mg/RSV 20 mg, (2) RSV 20 mg, or (3) CND 32 mg. The primary outcome variables were changes in the systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and the percentage changes in LDL-C from baseline to the drug treatment at 8 weeks. The secondary outcome variables were percentage changes of total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein A-I, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and glucose metabolic indices, including percentage changes of the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), adiponectin, and hemoglobin A1c. Tolerability of combination therapy was compared with other monotherapy groups. FINDINGS: The percentage changes of LDL-C were -48.6% (from 157.2 to 80.1 mg/dL) in the RSV group and -49.8% (from 160.2 to 78.9 mg/dL) in the CND/RSV group from baseline to the end of 8 weeks of treatment. Mean SBP and DBP were significantly decreased in the CND/RSV and CND groups after 8 weeks (P < 0.001 for all); however, no significant differences were found between the 2 groups. Total cholesterol levels, triglycerides, non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B were significantly reduced in the CND/RSV and RSV groups, with no significant differences between the groups compared with the CND group (P < 0.001 for all). The percentage changes of HOMA-IR, adiponectin, and hemoglobin A1c had no significant differences between the combination groups and monotherapy groups. However, in a 2-sample t test, HOMA-IR was significantly decreased in the CND/RSV group compared with the RSV group in nondiabetic patients (mean [SD] percentage change of HOMA-IR, -8.7% [37.6%] vs 17.1% [53.1%]; P = 0.048). There were no significant differences in metabolic indices between the diabetic groups. Adverse events in the CND/RSV group were similar to those in the monotherapy group. IMPLICATIONS: Once-daily fixed-dose combination therapy with CND/RSV is an effective, tolerable, convenient treatment option for patients with essential hypertension and hypercholesteremia. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02770261.

Effectiveness and Safety of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent (Resolute™ Integrity) in Patients with Diffuse Long Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Diffuse long coronary artery disease (DLCAD) still has unfavorable clinical outcomes after successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Resolute™ zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES; Resolute™ Integrity) for patients with DLCAD. METHODS: From December 2011 to December 2014, 1,011 patients who underwent PCI using R-ZES for CAD with longer than 25 mm lesion were prospectively enrolled from 21 hospitals in Korea. We assessed the clinical outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as the composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and clinically-driven target vessel revascularization at 12 months. RESULTS: Mean age was 63.8±10.8 years, 701 (69.3%) patients were male, 572 (87.0%) patients had hypertension, 339 (33.8%) patients had diabetes, 549 (54.3%) patients diagnosed with acute MI and 545 (53.9%) patients had multi-vessel disease (MVD). A total of 1,697 stents were implanted into a total of 1,472 lesions. The mean diameter was 3.07±0.38 mm and the length was 28.27±6.97 mm. Multiple overlapping stents were performed in 205 (13.8%) lesions. A 12-month clinical follow-up was available in 1,004 patients (99.3%). The incidences of MACE and definite stent thrombosis at 12-month were 3.0% and 0.3% respectively. On multivariate Cox-regression analysis, multiple overlapping stents implantation, previous congestive heart failure, MVD, and age ≥75 years were independent predictors of one-year MACE. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that R-ZES has an excellent 1-year clinical outcome in Korean patients with DLCAD.

Combination Therapy of Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe in Patients with High Cardiovascular Risk.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination therapy in Korean patients with high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. A total of 337 patients were screened. After a 4-week run-in period, 245 of these patients with high or moderately high risk as defined by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines were randomly assigned. Patients received 1 of 6 regimens for 8 weeks as follows: (1) rosuvastatin 5 mg, (2) rosuvastatin 5 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg, (3) rosuvastatin 10 mg, (4) rosuvastatin 10 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg, (5) rosuvastatin 20 mg, or (6) rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg. The primary outcome variable was percentage change in the level of LDL-C at week 8 of drug treatment. Secondary outcome variables included percentage changes of other lipid variables and achievement rates of LDL-C targets. Tolerability analyses were also performed. FINDINGS: The percentage change of LDL-C ranged from -45% to -56% (mean, -51%) in the monotherapy groups and from -58% to -63% (mean, -60%) in the combination therapy groups. The percentage change was greater in the pooled combination therapy group than in the counterpart (P < 0.001 for the pooled groups); this difference was more obvious for regimens with a lower statin dose. The percentage reductions of total cholesterol and triglycerides were greater in the combination groups than in the monotherapy groups. The LDL-C target achievement rates were 64% to 87% (mean, 73%) in the monotherapy groups and 87% to 95% (mean, 91%) in the combination groups (P = 0.01 for the pooled groups). The rates were significantly greater in patients receiving the combination therapy than in the monotherapy at lower doses of rosuvastatin. The proportions of patients with various adverse events were not significantly different between the groups. IMPLICATIONS: Rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination therapy has better efficacy and target achievement rates than rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with high cardiovascular risk.

The efficacy and safety of co-administration of fimasartan and rosuvastatin to patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension and dyslipidemia are major risk factors of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the co-administration of fimasartan and rosuvastatin in patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: We conducted a randomized double-blind and parallel-group trial. Patients who met eligible criteria after 4 weeks of therapeutic life change were randomly assigned to the following groups. 1) co-administration of fimasartan 120 mg/rosuvastatin 20 mg (FMS/RSV), 2) fimasartan 120 mg (FMS) alone 3) rosuvastatin 20 mg (RSV) alone. Drugs were administered once daily for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Of 140 randomized patients, 135 for whom efficacy data were available were analyzed. After 8 weeks of treatment, the FMS/RSV treatment group showed greater reductions in sitting systolic (siSBP) and diastolic (siDBP) blood pressures than those in the group receiving RSV alone (both p < 0.001). Reductions in siSBP and siDBP were not significantly different between the FMS/RSV and FMS alone groups (p = 0.500 and p = 0.734, respectively). After 8 weeks of treatment, FMS/RSV treatment showed greater efficacy in percentage reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline than that shown by FMS alone treatment (p < 0.001). The response rates of siSBP with FMS/RSV, FMS alone, and RSV alone treatments were 65.22, 55.56, and 34.09%, respectively (FMS/RSV vs. RSV, p = 0.006). The LDL-C goal attainment rates with FMS/RSV, RSV alone, and FMS alone treatments were 80.43%, 81.82%, and 15.56%, respectively (FMS/RSV vs. FMS, p < 0.001). Incidence of adverse drug reactions with FMS/RSV treatment was 8.33%, which was similar to those associated with FMS and RSV alone treatments. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the co-administration of fimasartan and rosuvastatin to patients with both hypertension and hypercholesterolemia was efficacious and safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02166814 . 16 June 2014.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of the Lercanidipine/Valsartan Combination in Korean Patients With Essential Hypertension Not Adequately Controlled With Lercanidipine Monotherapy: A Randomized, Multicenter, Parallel Design, Phase III Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the lercanidipine/valsartan combination compared with lercanidipine monotherapy in patients with hypertension. METHODS: Part 1 of this study was the randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, Phase III, 8-week clinical trial to compare superiority of lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 80 mg (L10/V80) and lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L10/V160) combinations with lercanidipine 10 mg (L10) monotherapy. At screening, hypertensive patients, whose diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was >90 mm Hg after 4 weeks with L10, were randomized to 3 groups of L10, L10/V80, and L10/V160. The primary end point was the change in the mean sitting DBP from baseline (week 0) after 8 weeks of therapy. Patients who were randomly assigned to L10/V160 and whose mean DBP was still ≥ 90 mm Hg in part 1 were enrolled to the up-titration extension study with lercanidipine 20 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L20/V160) (part 2). FINDINGS: Of 772 patients screened, 497 were randomized to 3 groups (166 in the L10 group, 168 in the L10/V80 group, and 163 in the L10/V160 group). Mean (SD) age was 55 (9.9) years, and male patients comprised 69%. The mean (SD) baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP were 148.4 (15.1)/94.3 (9.5) mm Hg. No significant differences were found between groups in baseline characteristics except the percentages of previous history of antihypertensive medication. The primary end points, the changes of mean (SD) DBP at week 8 from the baseline were -2.0 (8.8) mm Hg in the L10 group, -6.7 (8.5) mm Hg in L10/V80 group, and -8.1 (8.4) mm Hg in L10/V160 group. The adjusted mean difference between the combination groups and the L10 monotherapy group was -4.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -6.5 to -2.6; P < 0.001) in the L10/V80 group and -5.9 mm Hg (95% CI, -7.9 to -4.0, P < 0.001) in the L10/V160 group, which had significantly greater efficacy in BP lowering. A total of 74 patients were enrolled in the part 2 extension study. Changes of mean (SD) DBP and SBP from week 8 to week 12 and week 16 were -5.6 (7.9)/-8.0 (12.0) mm Hg and -5.5 (7.0)/-8.5 (11.3) mm Hg, respectively. For evaluation of the safety profile, the frequencies of adverse events between groups were also not significantly different. The most frequently reported adverse events were headache (6 cases, 20.7%) in the L10 group, dizziness (8 cases, 16.3%) in L10/V80 group, and nasopharyngitis (3 cases, 9.4%) in L10/V160 group, and the incidences of adverse events were not different between groups. IMPLICATIONS: Treatment of L10/V80 or L10/V160 combination therapy resulted in significantly greater BP lowering compared with L10 monotherapy. Moreover, the L20/V160 high dose combination had additional BP lowering effect compared with nonresponders with the L10/V160 combination. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01928628.