Assessment of the Efficacy of Lowering LDL Cholesterol with Rosuvastatin 10 mg in Four Korean Statin Benefit Groups as per ACC/AHA Guidelines (NewStaR4G).

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines identified four statin benefit groups on the basis of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk reduction and proposed statin therapy by evidence-based intensity. Although these guidelines used randomized controlled trials with hard outcomes as exclusive evidence for its recommendations, a limited number of studies conducted in Asian countries makes its application of treatment strategy, intensity, and statin doses uncertain in these population. This prospective, multicenter study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of rosuvastatin 10 mg in the four statin benefit groups requiring high- or moderate-intensity statin therapy according to the ACC/AHA guidelines in the Korean population. The primary endpoint was percentage reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Secondary endpoints were percentage reduction in other lipids and achievement of ≥50% reduction in LDL cholesterol. Rosuvastatin 10 mg lowered LDL cholesterol by 61.4 mg/dL, a 44.9% decrease from baseline after eight weeks. Reduction of LDL cholesterol ≥50% was achieved in 46.3% of patients. Rosuvastatin 10 mg was generally well tolerated. In the Korean population, rosuvastatin 10 mg was favorable and tolerant in lowering LDL cholesterol in the four statin benefit groups requiring high- or moderate-intensity statin therapy according to the ACC/AHA guidelines.

Stent Thrombosis With Drug-Eluting Stents and Bioresorbable Scaffolds: Evidence From a Network Meta-Analysis of 147 Trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the relative safety and efficacy of contemporary DES and BVS. BACKGROUND: To improve outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization, there have been advances in the design of drug-eluting stents (DES), including the development of drug-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS). METHODS: Prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing bare-metal stents (BMS), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents (E-ZES), cobalt-chromium (CoCr) everolimus-eluting stents (EES), platinum-chromium (PtCr)-EES, biodegradable polymer (BP)-EES, Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (R-ZES), BP biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES), hybrid sirolimus-eluting stents (H [Orsiro]-SES), polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents, or BVS were searched in online databases. The primary endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 147 trials including 126,526 patients were analyzed in this study. All contemporary DES were superior to BMS and PES in terms of definite or probable stent thrombosis at 1 year. CoCr-EES, PtCr-EES, and H-SES were associated with significantly lower risk than BVS. CoCr-EES and H-SES were superior to SES and BP-BES. The risk of myocardial infarction was significantly lower with H-SES than with BVS. There were no significant differences regarding all-cause or cardiac mortality. Contemporary devices including BVS showed comparably low risks of repeat revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary DES, including biocompatible DP-DES, BP-DES, and polymer-free DES, showed a low risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis at 1 year. BVS had an increased risk of device thrombosis compared with CoCr-EES, PtCr-EES, and H-SES. Data from extended follow-up are warranted to confirm the long-term safety of contemporary coronary devices.

Comparative assessment of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: surmountable vs. insurmountable antagonist.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms of antagonism vary between the angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs): insurmountable antagonism and surmountable antagonism. Recent retrospective observational studies suggest that ARBs may not have equivalent benefits in various clinical situations. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of two categories of ARBs on the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: We analyzed the large-scale, prospective, observational Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry study, which enrolled 2740 AMI patients. They divided by the prescription of surmountable ARBs or insurmountable ARBs at discharge. Primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, and re-percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft surgery. RESULTS: In the overall population, the MACEs rate in 1 year was significantly higher in the surmountable ARB group (14.3% vs. 11.2%, p=0.025), which was mainly due to increased cardiac death (3.3% vs. 1.9%, p=0.031). Matching by propensity-score showed consistent results (MACEs rate: 14.9% vs. 11.4%, p=0.037). In subgroup analysis, the insurmountable ARB treatment significantly reduced the incidence of MACEs in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40%, with a low killip class, with ST segment elevation MI, and with normal renal function. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, insurmountable ARBs were more effective on long-term clinical outcomes than surmountable ARBs in patients with AMI.

Physiologic assessment of jailed side branch lesions using fractional flow reserve.

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to evaluate the feasibility of the physiologic assessment of jailed side branches using fractional flow reserve (FFR) and to compare the measured FFR with the stenosis severity assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). BACKGROUND: It is not well-known which side branches should be treated after stent implantation at main branches and how to assess the functional significance of these lesions. METHODS: Ninety-seven jailed side branch lesions (vessel size > 2.0 mm, percent stenosis > 50% by visual estimation) after stent implantation at main branches were consecutively enrolled. The FFR was measured using a pressure wire at 5 mm distal and proximal to the ostial lesion of the jailed side branch. RESULTS: The FFR measurement was successful in 94 lesions. Mean FFRs were 0.94 +/- 0.04 and 0.85 +/- 0.11 at the main branches and jailed side branches, respectively. There was a negative correlation between the percent stenosis and FFR (r = -0.41, p < 0.001). However, no lesion with < 75% stenosis had FFR < 0.75. Among 73 lesions with > or = 75% stenosis, only 20 lesions were functionally significant. CONCLUSIONS: The FFR measurement in jailed side branch lesions is both safe and feasible. Quantitative coronary angiography is unreliable in the assessment of the functional severity of jailed side branch lesions, and measurement of FFR suggests that most of these lesions do not have functional significance.