The Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation on Healthcare Costs and Clinical Outcomes Based on Frailty Risk: A Nationwide Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is preferred for treating severe aortic stenosis in older, frail populations, yet the impact of frailty on TAVI's economic and clinical outcomes is not well-studied. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 2,175 TAVI patients from 2015 to 2019 using Korea's National Health Insurance Service database, stratifying patients into low, intermediate, and high-frailty groups using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS). Healthcare costs, admissions, and total length of hospitalization were analyzed using Wilcoxon-rank test 12 months pre- and post-TAVI. Composite endpoint of death, stroke, and major bleeding, with individual outcomes, were compared using Chi-squared tests and Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Mean age was 80.2 years, and 47.3% were male. 747 (34.3%) were low-frailty, 1,159 (53.3%) were moderate-frailty, and 269 (12.4%) were high-frailty. After TAVI, medical costs decreased in the intermediate (pre-TAVI: 2,269,000 KRW [1,668 USD], post-TAVI: 1,607,000 KRW [1,181 USD], p<0.001) and high frailty groups (pre-TAVI: 3,949,000 KRW [2,904 USD], post-TAVI: 2,188,000 KRW [1,609 USD], p<0.001). All frailty groups had shorter length of hospital stay post-TAVI (26 to 21 days in the low, 44 to 31 days in the intermediate, and 65 to 41 days in the high frailty group; all p<0.001). The composite outcome was higher in the frailer groups (27.8% in the low vs. 31.5% in the intermediate vs. and 37.9% in the high frailty group; p=0.008). All groups showed comparable rates of cardiovascular death, stroke or bleeding. CONCLUSION: TAVI is clinically viable and cost-saving treatment option for frail patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Impact of Complete Revascularization for Acute Myocardial Infarction In Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Patients With Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The clinical benefits of complete revascularization (CR) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients are unclear. Moreover, the benefit of CR is unknown in AMI with diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. We sought to compare the prognosis of CR and incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with AMI and multivessel disease, according to the presence of DM. METHODS: A total of 2,150 AMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were analyzed. CR was defined based on the angiographic image. The primary endpoint of this study was the patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) defined as a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization within 3 years. RESULTS: Overall, 3-year POCO was significantly lower in patients receiving angiographic CR (985 patients, 45.8%) compared with IR (1,165 patients, 54.2%). When divided into subgroups according to the presence of DM, CR reduced 3-year clinical outcomes in the non-DM group but not in the DM group (POCO: 11.7% vs. 23.2%, p<0.001, any revascularization: 7.2% vs. 10.8%, p=0.024 in the non-DM group, POCO: 24.3% vs. 27.8%, p=0.295, any revascularization: 13.3% vs. 11.3%, p=0.448 in the DM group, for CR vs. IR). Multivariate analysis showed that CR significantly reduced 3-year POCO (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.75) only in the non-DM group. CONCLUSIONS: In AMI patients with multivessel disease, CR may have less clinical benefit in DM patients than in non-DM patients.

Long-term outcomes of high bleeding risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a Korean nationwide registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at increased risk of not only bleeding, but also ischaemic events. This study aimed to determine the long-term relative risk of ischaemic and bleeding events in HBR patients. METHODS: This study was a nationwide cohort study, based on the Korean National Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. Patients diagnosed with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome and those who underwent PCI in Korea between 2009 and 2018 were included in the analysis. According to the Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria, the total population was divided into HBR and non-HBR groups. The co-primary outcomes were major bleeding events and ischaemic (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke) events. RESULTS: Among a total of 325 417 patients who underwent PCI, 66 426 patients (20.4%) had HBR. During the follow-up period, HBR patients had a higher risk for major bleeding events (23.9% vs. 8.9%, P < .001) and ischaemic events (33.8% vs. 14.4%, P < .001). However, the impact of HBR was significant for major bleeding events [hazard ratio (HR) 3.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.04-3.21, P < .001] and for ischaemic events (HR 2.50, 95% CI 2.45-2.56, P < .001). The HBR group was also associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality (HR 3.73, 95% CI 3.66-3.79, P < .001). The average annual rate of major bleeding events within the first year after PCI was 5.5% for a single major criterion, and 2.9% for a single minor criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing PCI, those with HBR were at increased long-term risk for both bleeding and ischaemic events, with a greater risk of mortality compared to non-HBR patients.

Durable-polymer versus biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndromes: three-year outcomes of the HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up is essential to evaluate the impact of polymer degradation in drug-eluting stents (DES). AIMS: We aimed to compare durable-polymer DES (DP-DES) and biodegradable-polymer DES (BP-DES) during a 3-year follow-up to evaluate the entire period of polymer resolution (before, during, and after degradation). METHODS: The HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial was a randomised clinical trial enrolling patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and comparing the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES. The primary outcome was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), and the key secondary outcome was a device-oriented composite outcome (DOCO). RESULTS: A total of 3,413 ACS patients were randomised to either the DP-DES (1,713 patients) or BP-DES (1,700 patients) group. During the 3-year follow-up, the risk of the POCO was similar between the DP-DES and BP-DES groups (14.8% vs 15.4%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-1.14; p=0.613). However, the risk of the DOCO was lower in the DP-DES group (6.0% vs 8.0%, HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.95; p=0.020). In a landmark analysis, the lower risk of the DOCO for the DP-DES group was evident during the transition from the early to the late period after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (from 8 to 16 months post-PCI; 1.8% vs 3.3%, HR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.34-0.84; p=0.007), which was mainly driven by a risk reduction of target lesion revascularisation. CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients, DP-DES showed similar results to BP-DES regarding the POCO up to 3 years. For the DOCO, DP-DES were superior to BP-DES; this was due to the higher event rate during the period of polymer degradation.

Biodegradable Polymer Versus Polymer-Free Ultrathin Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: Analysis of the Stent Arm Registry From the HOST-IDEA Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of each third-generation drug-eluting stent with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology remain unclear. We investigated the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention using the Coroflex ISAR polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or Orsiro biodegradable polymer SES. METHODS: The HOST-IDEA trial (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis-Coronary Intervention With Next-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms and Abbreviated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy), initially designed with a 2×2 factorial approach, sought to randomize patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention based on dual antiplatelet therapy duration (3 versus 12 months) and stent type (Coroflex ISAR versus Orsiro). Despite randomizing 2013 patients for dual antiplatelet therapy duration, the stent arm transitioned to a registry format during the trial. Among these, 328 individuals (16.3%) were randomized for Coroflex ISAR or Orsiro SES, while 1685 (83.7%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention without stent-type randomization. In this study, the Coroflex ISAR (n=559) and Orsiro groups (n=1449) were matched using a propensity score. The prespecified primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months. RESULTS: The baseline patient and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the Coroflex ISAR and Orsiro groups after propensity score matching (n=559, each group). The Coroflex ISAR group was significantly associated with a higher rate of target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, compared with the Orsiro group (3.4% versus 1.1%; hazard ratio, 3.21 [95% CI, 1.28-8.05]; P=0.01). A higher risk of target lesion failure in the Coroflex ISAR group was consistently observed across various subgroups. The rates of any bleeding (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.51-1.40]; P=0.52) and major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.61-4.08]; P=0.34) were comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched analysis of the stent arm registry from the HOST-IDEA trial, the Orsiro SES was associated with significantly better outcomes in terms of 1-year target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, than the Coroflex ISAR SES. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02601157.

Developing a national surveillance system for stroke and acute myocardial infarction using claims data in the Republic of Korea: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available concerning the epidemiology of stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the Republic of Korea. This study aimed to develop a national surveillance system to monitor the incidence of stroke and AMI using national claims data. METHODS: We developed and validated identification algorithms for stroke and AMI using claims data. This validation involved a 2-stage stratified sampling method with a review of medical records for sampled cases. The weighted positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated based on the sampling structure and the corresponding sampling rates. Incident cases and the incidence rates of stroke and AMI in the Republic of Korea were estimated by applying the algorithms and weighted PPV and NPV to the 2018 National Health Insurance Service claims data. RESULTS: In total, 2,200 cases (1,086 stroke cases and 1,114 AMI cases) were sampled from the 2018 claims database. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithms were 94.3% and 88.6% for stroke and 97.9% and 90.1% for AMI, respectively. The estimated number of cases, including recurrent events, was 150,837 for stroke and 40,529 for AMI in 2018. The age- and sex-standardized incidence rate for stroke and AMI was 180.2 and 46.1 cases per 100,000 person-years, respectively, in 2018. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing a national surveillance system based on claims data and identification algorithms for stroke and AMI to monitor their incidence rates.

Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy of Telmisartan/Amlodipine/Rosuvastatin in Patients with Dyslipidemia and Hypertension: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Hypertension and dyslipidemia significantly contribute to cardiovascular disease development. Their coexistence poses challenges in managing multiple medications, influencing treatment adherence. Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combined treatment approach using a fixed-dose combination therapy. Methods: This multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, Phase IV trial was named Telmisartan/Amlodipine/Rosuvastatin from Samjin Pharmaceuticals and evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination treatment in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia. They were randomly assigned to 2 fixed-dose combination therapy groups, telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/rosuvastatin 10 mg (TEL/ALD/RSV) or amlodipine 5 mg/atorvastatin 10 mg (ALD/ATV) after washout/run-in period. The primary outcomes were the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure and the percentage change of LDL-C after 8 weeks of medical treatment. Adverse drug reactions and events were assessed. Results: Of a total of 304 patients who underwent screening, 252 were randomized to the TEL/ALD/RSV group (125 patients) and the ALD/ATV group (127 patients). The mean (SD) ages of the TEL/ALD/RSV group and the ALD/ATV group were 67.4 (11.3) and 68.2 (10.6) years, respectively (P = 0.563). The least-squares mean (SE) in mean sitting systolic blood pressure changes between the 2 groups were -16.27 (0.93) mm Hg in the TEL/ALD/RSV group, -6.85 (0.92) mm Hg in the ALD/ATV group (LSM difference = -9.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, -11.99 to -6.84; P < .001). For LDL-C level changes, a significant difference was noted between the 2 groups: -50.03% (1.18%) in the TEL/ALD/RSV group, -39.60% (1.17%) in the ALD/ATV group (LSM difference = -10.43%; 95% CI, -13.70 to -7.16; P < .001). No severe adverse events were observed. Conclusions: TEL/ALD/RSV proved to be more efficient than ALD/ATV in lowering blood pressure and reducing LDL-C levels among patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia, with no notable safety concerns. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2024; XX:XXX-XXX). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03860220.