Fully automated quantitative coronary angiography versus optical coherence tomography guidance for coronary stent implantation (FLASH): Study protocol for a randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence-based quantitative coronary angiography (AI-QCA) has been developed to provide a more objective and reproducible data about the severity of coronary artery stenosis and the dimensions of the vessel for intervention in real-time, overcoming the limitations of significant inter- and intraobserver variability, and time-consuming nature of on-site QCA, without requiring extra time and effort. Compared with the subjective nature of visually estimated conventional CAG guidance, AI-QCA guidance provides a more practical and standardized angiography-based approach. Although the advantage of intravascular imaging-guided PCI is increasingly recognized, their broader adoption is limited by clinical and economic barriers in many catheterization laboratories. METHODS: The FLASH (fully automated quantitative coronary angiography versus optical coherence tomography guidance for coronary stent implantation) trial is a randomized, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial comparing the AI-QCA-assisted PCI strategy with optical coherence tomography-guided PCI strategy in patients with significant coronary artery disease. All operators will utilize a novel, standardized AI-QCA software and PCI protocol in the AI-QCA-assisted group. A total of 400 patients will be randomized to either group at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is the minimal stent area (mm2), determined by the final OCT run after completion of PCI. Clinical follow-up and cost-effectiveness evaluations are planned at 1 month and 6 months for all patients enrolled in the study. RESULTS: Enrollment of a total of 400 patients from the 13 participating centers in South Korea will be completed in February 2024. Follow-up of the last enrolled patients will be completed in August 2024, and primary results will be available by late 2024. CONCLUSION: The FLASH is the first clinical trial to evaluate the feasibility of AI-QCA-assisted PCI, and will provide the clinical evidence on AI-QCA assistance in the field of coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT05388357.

The Association of CHADS-P2A2RC Risk Score With Clinical Outcomes in Patients Taking P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy After 3 Months of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Concerns remain that early aspirin cessation may be associated with potential harm in subsets at high risk of ischemic events. This study aimed to assess the effects of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs. prolonged DAPT (12-month or longer) based on the ischemic risk stratification, the CHADS-P2A2RC, after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: This was a sub-study of the SMART-CHOICE trial. The effect of the randomized antiplatelet strategies was assessed across 3 CHADS-P2A2RC risk score categories. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. RESULTS: Up to 3 years, the high CHADS-P2A2RC risk score group had the highest incidence of MACCE (105 [12.1%], adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.927; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.358-6.309; p=0.006) followed by moderate-risk (40 [1.4%], adjusted HR, 1.786; 95% CI, 0.868-3.674; p=0.115) and low-risk (9 [0.5%], reference). In secondary analyses, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduced the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding without increasing the risk of MACCE as compared with prolonged DAPT across the 3 CHADS-P2A2RC risk strata without significant interaction term (interaction p for MACCE=0.705 and interaction p for BARC types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding=0.055). CONCLUSIONS: The CHADS-P2A2RC risk score is valuable in discriminating high-ischemic-risk patients. Even in such patients with a high risk of ischemic events, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a lower incidence of bleeding without increased risk of ischemic events compared with prolonged DAPT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02079194.

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.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Before and After Standardized Optimization Protocols.

BACKGROUND: Although benefits of intravascular imaging (IVI) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been observed in previous studies, it is not known whether changes in contemporary practice, especially with application of standardized optimization protocols, have improved clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate whether clinical outcomes of IVI-guided PCI are different before and after the application of standardized optimization protocols in using IVI. METHODS: 2,972 patients from an institutional registry (2008-2015, before application of standardized optimization protocols, the past group) and 1,639 patients from a recently published trial (2018-2021 after application of standardized optimization protocols, the present group) were divided into 2 groups according to use of IVI. The primary outcome was 3-year target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Significant reduction of TVF was observed in the IVI-guided PCI group compared with the angiography-guided PCI group (10.0% vs 6.7%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.97; P = 0.027), mainly driven by reduced cardiac death or myocardial infarction in both past and present IVI-guided PCI groups. When comparing past IVI and present IVI groups, TVF was significantly lower in the present IVI group (8.5% vs 5.1%; HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.42-0.94; P = 0.025), with the difference being driven by reduced target vessel revascularization in the present IVI group. Consistent results were observed in inverse-probability-weighting adjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: IVI-guided PCI improved clinical outcomes more than angiography-guided PCI. In addition, application of standardized optimization protocols when using IVI further improved clinical outcomes after PCI. (Intravascular Imaging- Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For Complex Coronary Artery Disease [RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI]; NCT03381872; and the institutional cardiovascular catheterization database of Samsung Medical Center: Long-Term Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Patient Undergoing CABG or PCI; NCT03870815).

Cost-Effectiveness of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Complex PCI: Prespecified Analysis of RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical benefits of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with complex coronary artery lesions have been observed in previous trials, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is uncertain. METHODS: RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance vs Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was conducted in Korea between May 2018 and May 2021. This prespecified cost-effectiveness substudy was conducted using Markov model that simulated 3 states: (1) post-PCI, (2) spontaneous myocardial infarction, and (3) death. A simulated cohort was derived from the intention-to-treat population, and input parameters were extracted from either the trial data or previous publications. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using time horizon of 3 years (within trial) and lifetime. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), an indicator of incremental cost on additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, in intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. The current analysis was performed using the Korean health care sector perspective with reporting the results in US dollar (1200 Korean Won, ₩=1 dollar, $). Willingness to pay threshold was $35 000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: A total of 1639 patients were included in the trial. During 3-year follow-up, medical costs ($8661 versus $7236; incremental cost, $1426) and QALY (2.34 versus 2.31; incremental QALY, 0.025) were both higher in intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI, resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 040 per QALY gained within trial data. Conversely, lifetime simulation showed total cumulative medical cost was reversed between the 2 groups ($40 455 versus $49 519; incremental cost, -$9063) with consistently higher QALY (8.24 versus 7.89; incremental QALY, 0.910) in intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Consistently, 70% of probabilistic iterations showed cost-effectiveness of intravascular imaging-guided PCI in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The current cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that imaging-guided PCI is more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI by reducing medical cost and increasing quality-of-life in complex coronary artery lesions in long-term follow-up. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in Patients Undergoing Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: There are limited clinical data on drug-coated balloon (DCB)-based percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with drug-eluting stent (DES)-only PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. Objectives: The goal of the current study was to investigate the efficacy of DCB in patients undergoing PCI for complex coronary artery lesions. Methods: From an institutional registry of patients with de novo complex coronary artery lesions, 126 patients treated with DCB-based PCI were compared with 234 propensity score-matched patients treated with DES-only PCI. Complex coronary artery lesions were defined as the presence of at least 1 of the following: bifurcation, chronic total occlusion, unprotected left main disease, long lesion ≥38 mm, multivessel disease, lesion requiring ≥3 devices, or severe calcification. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. DCB-based PCI showed a comparable risk of TVF vs DES-based PCI (7.6% vs 8.1%; HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.33-1.99; P = 0.638). The risks of cardiac death (5.0% vs 5.7%; HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.24-2.49), target vessel-related myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 1.3%; HR: 2.65; 95% CI: 0.26-27.06), and target vessel revascularization (3.5% vs 2.0%; HR: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.30-5.67) were also comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusions: DCB-based PCI showed comparable risks of TVF vs those of DES-only PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. DCB might be considered as a suitable alternative device to DES in patients undergoing complex PCI. (Long-term Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Patient Undergoing CABG or PCI; NCT03870815).

Intravascular Imaging and Angiography Guidance in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Patients With Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Data are limited regarding the effects of intravascular imaging guidance during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided vs angiography-guided complex PCI in patients with or without diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of a subgroup of patients in RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), an investigator-initiated, open-label multicenter trial, analyzed enrolled patients who underwent complex PCI at 20 sites in Korea from May 2018 through May 2021. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either the intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. Data analyses were performed from June 2023 to April 2024. Interventions: Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed either under the guidance of intravascular imaging or angiography alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Results: Among the 1639 patients included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [10.2] years; 1300 males [79.3%]), 617 (37.6%) had diabetes. The incidence of TVF was significantly higher in patients with diabetes than patients without diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.33-2.60; P < .001). Among patients without diabetes, the intravascular imaging-guided PCI group had a significantly lower incidence of TVF compared with the angiography-guided PCI group (4.7% vs 12.2%; HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.25-0.67]; P < .001). Conversely, in patients with diabetes, the risk of TVF was not significantly different between the 2 groups (12.9% vs 12.3%; HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.60-1.57]; P = .90). There was a significant interaction between the use of intravascular imaging and diabetes for the risk of TVF (P for interaction = .02). Among patients with diabetes, only those with good glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c level ≤7.5%) and who achieved stent optimization by intravascular imaging showed a lower risk of future ischemic events (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.82; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a subgroup of patients in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI trial, intravascular imaging guidance reduced the risk of TVF compared with angiography guidance in patients without diabetes (but not in patients with diabetes) during complex PCI. In patients with diabetes undergoing complex PCI, attention should be paid to stent optimization using intravascular imaging and glycemic control to improve outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

Impact of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Stent Optimization According to Clinical Presentation in Patients Undergoing Complex PCI.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the beneficial effects of intravascular imaging-guided stent optimization vary by clinical presentation during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: In this prespecified, stratified subgroup analysis from RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex PCI), we sought to compare the outcomes between intravascular imaging vs angiography guidance according to clinical presentation. METHODS: Patients with complex coronary artery lesions were randomly assigned to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI in a 2:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), which is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Of 1,639 patients, 832 (50.8%) presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and 807 (49.2%) with chronic coronary syndrome. During a median follow-up of 2.1 years (Q1-Q3: 1.4-3.0 years), there was no significant interaction between the treatment effect of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation (P for interaction = 0.19). Among patients with ACS, the incidences of TVF were 10.4% in the intravascular imaging group and 14.6% in the angiography group (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.48-1.15; P = 0.18). Among patients with CCS, the incidences of TVF were 5.0% in the intravascular imaging group and 10.4% in the angiography group (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.27-0.80; P = 0.006). Achieving stent optimization by intravascular imaging resulted in a reduced risk of TVF among patients with ACS who were randomly assigned to intravascular imaging-guided PCI for complex coronary lesions (optimized vs unoptimized, 6.5% vs 14.1%; HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27-0.87; P = 0.02) but not those with CCS (5.4% vs 4.7%, HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.53-2.59; P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: No significant interaction was observed between the benefits of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation in the risk of TVF. Stent optimization by intravascular imaging was particularly important for ACS patients. (Intravascular Imaging- Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For Complex Coronary Artery Disease [RENOVATE]; NCT03381872).

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Optimization of Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention by Sex: A Subgroup Analysis of the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI Trial.

Importance: There have been heterogeneous results related to sex differences in prognosis after percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI) for complex coronary artery lesions. Objective: To evaluate potential differences in outcomes with intravascular imaging-guided PCI of complex coronary artery lesions between women and men. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified substudy evaluates the interaction of sex in the investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI randomized clinical trial, which demonstrated the superiority of intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. The trial was conducted at 20 sites in Korea. Patients with complex coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI were enrolled between May 2018 and May 2021, and the median (IQR) follow-up period was 2.1 (1.4-3.0) years. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to December 2023. Interventions: After diagnostic coronary angiography, eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The choice and timing of the intravascular imaging device were left to the operators' discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included individual components of the primary end point. Results: Of 1639 included patients, 339 (20.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (10.2) years. There was no difference in the risk of the primary end point between women and men (9.4% vs 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.89-2.18; P = .15). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI tended to have lower incidence of the primary end point than angiography-guided PCI in both women (5.2% vs 14.5%; adjusted HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.78; P = .01) and men (8.3% vs 11.7%; adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.05; P = .09) without significant interaction (P for interaction = .86). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients undergoing complex PCI, compared with angiographic guidance, intravascular imaging guidance was associated with similar reduction in the risk of target vessel failure among women and men. The treatment benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed no significant interaction between treatment strategy and sex. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy. METHODS: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography. FINDINGS: In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).