Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

The benefits of intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the clinical context of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction are lacking. We aimed to investigate the impact of IVUS-guided PCI in patients with AMI and CS. From the pooled data based on a series of Korean AMI registries during 2011-2020, we identified 1418 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with second generation drug-eluting stent (DES) for AMI and CS. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization. In total, 294 (20.7%) and 1124 (79.3%) underwent IVUS-guided and angiography-guided PCI with second generation DES implantation, respectively. The 1-year TLF was not significantly different between groups after IPTW analysis (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.65-1.34, p = 0.70). Additionally, the adjusted landmark analysis for TLF at 30 days and between 30 days and 1 year after PCI demonstrated no significant difference between the groups. In conclusion, in patients with AMI and CS who underwent PCI with second-generation DES, IVUS-guided PCI did not improve the 1-year TLF compared with angiography-guided PCI.Registration: URL:  http://cris.nih.go.kr . KCT0000863 and KCT0008355.

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.

Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether the treatment efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) depends on the type of P2Y12 inhibitor. Objective: To assess the risks and benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy or clopidogrel monotherapy compared with standard DAPT after PCI. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, TCTMD, and the European Society of Cardiology website were searched from inception to September 10, 2023, without language restriction. Study Selection: Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT on adjudicated end points in patients without indication to oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Patient-level data provided by each trial were synthesized into a pooled dataset and analyzed using a 1-step mixed-effects model. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective was to determine noninferiority of ticagrelor or clopidogrel monotherapy vs DAPT on the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the per-protocol analysis with a 1.15 margin for the hazard ratio (HR). Key secondary end points were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including the primary end point and major bleeding. Results: Analyses included 6 randomized trials including 25 960 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 24 394 patients (12 403 patients receiving DAPT; 8292 patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy; 3654 patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy; 45 patients receiving prasugrel monotherapy) were retained in the per-protocol analysis. Trials of ticagrelor monotherapy were conducted in Asia, Europe, and North America; trials of clopidogrel monotherapy were all conducted in Asia. Ticagrelor was noninferior to DAPT for the primary end point (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06; P for noninferiority = .004), but clopidogrel was not noninferior (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87; P for noninferiority > .99), with this finding driven by noncardiovascular death. The risk of major bleeding was lower with both ticagrelor (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62; P < .001) and clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .006; P for interaction = 0.88). NACE were lower with ticagrelor (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86, P < .001) but not with clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .99; P for interaction = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ticagrelor monotherapy was noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke and superior for major bleeding and NACE. Clopidogrel monotherapy was similarly associated with reduced bleeding but was not noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke, largely because of risk observed in 1 trial that exclusively included East Asian patients and a hazard that was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of TWILIGHT and TICO Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor coupled with aspirin for 1 year is the recommended treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). As an alternative, monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy has emerged as a bleeding reduction strategy. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from randomized trials that included patients with ACS undergoing PCI treated with an initial 3-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy followed by ticagrelor monotherapy versus continued ticagrelor plus aspirin. Patients sustaining a major ischemic or bleeding event in the first 3 months after PCI were excluded from analysis. The primary outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurring between 3 and 12 months after index PCI. The key secondary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Hazard ratios and 95% CIs were generated using Cox regression with a one-stage approach in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: The pooled cohort (n=7529) had a mean age of 62.8 years, 23.2% were female, and 55% presented with biomarker-positive ACS. Between 3 and 12 months, ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (0.8% versus 2.1%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.24-0.56]; P<0.001). Rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were not significantly different between groups (2.4% versus 2.7%; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.68-1.21]; P=0.515). Findings were unchanged among patients presenting with biomarker-positive ACS. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ACS undergoing PCI who have completed a 3-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy, discontinuation of aspirin followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced major bleeding without incremental ischemic risk compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42023449646.

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.

Optical coherence tomography-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) yields clinical outcomes comparable to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, there is a scarcity of data comparing the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to compare the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided vs IVUS-guided PCI for patients with AMI in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). METHODS: We identified 5260 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with a second-generation DES for AMI under IVUS or OCT guidance from pooled data derived from a series of Korean AMI registries between 2011 and 2020. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 535 (10.2%) and 4725 (89.8%) patients were treated under OCT and IVUS guidance, respectively. The 1-year target lesion failure rates were comparable between the OCT and IVUS groups before and after propensity score matching (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.42-2.05, P=.84). The OCT utilization rate did not exceed 5% of total patients treated with second-generation DES implantation during the study period. The primary factors for the selection of OCT over IVUS were the absence of chronic kidney disease, non-left main vessel disease, single-vessel disease, stent diameter <3mm, and stent length ≤ 25mm. CONCLUSIONS: OCT-guided PCI in patients with AMI treated with a second-generation DES provided comparable clinical outcomes for 1-year target lesion failure compared with IVUS-guided PCI.

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.

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Combined With Colchicine Following PCI in ACS Patients: The MACT Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: After a brief period of dual antiplatelet therapy, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy in the absence of aspirin effectively reduces bleeding without increasing recurrent ischemia in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In addition, early anti-inflammatory therapies may have clinical benefits in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of ticagrelor or prasugrel P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy combined with colchicine immediately after PCI in patients with ACS. METHODS: This was a proof-of-concept pilot trial. ACS patients treated with drug-eluting stents were included. On the day after PCI, low-dose colchicine (0.6 mg daily) was administered in addition to ticagrelor or prasugrel maintenance therapy, whereas aspirin therapy was discontinued. The primary outcome was any stent thrombosis at 3 months. The key secondary outcomes were platelet reactivity measured by the VerifyNow assay (Accriva) before discharge and a reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) over 1 month. RESULTS: We enrolled 200 patients, 190 (95.0%) of whom completed the 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome occurred in 2 patients (1.0%): 1 definite and 1 probable stent thrombosis. The level of platelet reactivity overall was 27 ± 42 P2Y12 reaction units, and only 1 patient had high platelet reactivity (>208 P2Y12 reaction units). The hs-CRP levels decreased from 6.1 mg/L (IQR: 2.6-15.9 mg/L) at 24 hours after PCI to 0.6 mg/L (IQR: 0.4-1.2 mg/L) at 1 month (P < 0.001), and the prevalence of high-inflammation criteria (hs-CRP ≥2 mg/L) decreased from 81.8% to 11.8% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients undergoing PCI, it is feasible to discontinue aspirin therapy and administer low-dose colchicine on the day after PCI in addition to ticagrelor or prasugrel P2Y12 inhibitors. This approach is associated with favorable platelet function and inflammatory profiles. (Mono Antiplatelet and Colchicine Therapy [MACT]; NCT04949516).

Clinical implication of ticagrelor monotherapy in patients with small vessel coronary artery disease: results from the TICO randomized trial.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy in patients with small vessel disease compared with ticagrelor-based DAPT within the Ticagrelor Monotherapy after 3 Months in the Patients Treated with New Generation Sirolimus Eluting Stent for Acute Coronary Syndrome (TICO) trial population. Methods: Reference vessel diameter ≤2.5 mm was considered as small vessel disease. We conducted a comparison of the incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding. TLF was defined as a composite of cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization. Results: 652 patients among 3,056 TICO population (21.3%) had small vessel disease. Patients with small vessel disease showed a higher rate of TLF compared to those without small vessel disease (2.9% vs. 1.0%, log-rank p < 0.001). The presence of small vessel disease emerged as an independent predictor for 1-year TLF (HR 2.84, 95% CI 1.54-5.25), while it did not show a significant association with bleeding complications. The 12-month TLF rate was 1.6% for ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT, and 4.2% for ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT (p = 0.059) in patients with small vessel disease (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14-1.04, p for interaction = 0.261). The incidence of BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding rate 2.5% for ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT, and 5.6% for ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT (p = 0.052) in patients with small vessel disease (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19-1.01, p for interaction = 0.322). In the 3-month landmark analysis, ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding in patients with small vessel disease (HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.69, log-rank p = 0.005) while demonstrating a similar incidence of TLF compared to ticagrelor based 12-month DAPT during the 3-12 months period. Conclusions: There are no significant interactions between the antiplatelet strategy regarding the 12-month incidence of ischemic and bleeding complications. Ticagrelor monotherapy demonstrated a reduction in bleeding complications after a 3-month period of DAPT without increasing the rate of TLF, when compared to ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT, specifically in patients with small vessel disease. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT02494895.

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.

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).

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.