Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Ticagrelor and Prasugrel in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction　- Results From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND: There is little information regarding comparison of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We sought to compare clinical outcomes between ticagrelor and prasugrel in STEMI.Methods and Results:A total of 1,440 patients with STEMI who underwent successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed; the data were obtained from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health. Of the patients, 963 received ticagrelor, and 477 received prasugrel. The primary study endpoint was 12-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). MACE occurred in 91 patients (6.3%) over the 1-year follow-up, and there were no differences in the incidence of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.91, P=0.438) between the 2 groups. Analysis by propensity score matching (429 pairs) did not significantly affect the results. The incidence of in-hospital major bleeding events was still comparable between the 2 groups (2.4% vs. 2.5%, odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.30-1.86, P=0.532), and there was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE (5.4% vs. 5.8%, HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.56-1.74, P=0.951) after matching. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor and prasugrel showed similar efficacy and safety profiles for treating STEMI in this Korean multicenter registry.

Optimal Revascularization Strategy in Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Culprit-Only Versus One-Stage Versus Multistage Revascularization.

Background Few studies have investigated optimal revascularization strategies in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. We investigated 3-year clinical outcomes according to revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Methods and Results This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease without cardiogenic shock. Data were analyzed at 3 years according to the percutaneous coronary intervention strategy: culprit-only revascularization (COR), 1-stage multivessel revascularization (MVR), and multistage MVR. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE: a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization). The COR group had a higher risk of MACE than those involving other strategies (COR versus 1-stage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.77; P<0.001; and COR versus multistage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P=0.027). There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between 1-stage and multistage MVR (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.51; P=0.355). The results were consistent after multivariate regression, propensity score matching, inverse probability weighting, and Bayesian proportional hazards modeling. In subgroup analyses stratified by the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, 1-stage MVR lowered the risk of MACE compared with multistage MVR in low-to-intermediate risk patients but not in patients at high risk. Conclusions MVR reduced 3-year MACE in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease compared with COR. However, 1-stage MVR was not superior to multistage MVR for reducing MACE except in low-to-intermediate risk patients.

Mobilized endothelial progenitor cells by granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor accelerate reendothelialization and reduce vascular inflammation after intravascular radiation.

BACKGROUND: Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) play a pivotal role in repair and regeneration of damaged vessels. We investigated the role of mobilized EPCs in the healing process after intravascular radiation therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: One iliac artery of hypercholesterolemic rabbits was subjected to balloon injury and intravascular radiation with a Re-188 balloon and the contralateral iliac artery to balloon injury only. Rabbits received granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (recombinant human GM-CSF) (60 microg/d subcutaneously) daily for 1 week, either 7 days before the angioplasty or at the time of angioplasty. Control rabbits received human albumin. GM-CSF significantly increased the double-positive (CD31+ and KDR+) fraction in peripheral blood monocytes and showed a higher number of EPCs than albumin after culture and, furthermore, enhanced migration and incorporation of EPCs. In the albumin group, intravascular radiation therapy reduced neointimal hyperplasia but delayed reendothelialization and aggravated monocyte infiltration. GM-CSF treatment significantly accelerated the reendothelialization and inhibited monocyte infiltration (reendothelialization index, 81+/-13% in the GM-CSF radiation [n=7] versus 30+/-11% in the control radiation [n=9] at 2 weeks, P<0.01). GM-CSF treatment produced an additional significant reduction in neointimal formation at 14 and 28 days after injury in the intravascular radiation groups (intima to media ratio, 0.14+/-0.11 in the GM-CSF radiation [n=5] versus 0.36+/-0.07 in the control radiation [n=5] at 4 weeks, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: GM-CSF treatment mobilizes EPCs, accelerates reendothelialization, and reduces monocytes infiltration after intravascular radiation therapy, suggesting that stem cell mobilization is a promising strategy for enhancing the vascular healing process after cytotoxic angioplasty.