Body Mass Index and Major Adverse Events During Chronic Antiplatelet Monotherapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents　- Results From the HOST-EXAM Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the association of body mass index (BMI) with adverse clinical outcomes during chronic maintenance antiplatelet monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES).Methods and Results: Overall, 5,112 patients were stratified (in kg/m2) into underweight (BMI ≤18.4), normal weight (18.5-22.9), overweight (23.0-24.9), obesity (25.0-29.9) and severe obesity (≥30.0) categories with randomized antiplatelet monotherapy of aspirin 100 mg or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for 24 months. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission due to acute coronary syndrome and major bleeding of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥3. Compared with normal weight, the risk of primary composite outcomes was higher in the underweight (hazard ratio [HR] 2.183 [1.199-3.974]), but lower in the obesity (HR 0.730 [0.558-0.954]) and severe obesity (HR 0.518 [0.278-0.966]) categories, which is partly driven by the difference in all-cause death. The risk of major bleeding was significantly higher in the underweight (HR 4.140 [1.704-10.059]) than in the normal weight category. A decrease in categorical BMI was independently associated with the increased risk of primary composite outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Lower BMI is associated with a higher risk of primary composite outcomes, which is primarily related to the events of all-cause death or major bleeding during chronic maintenance antiplatelet monotherapy after PCI with DES.

Randomized Prospective Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting vs. Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention　- 3-Year Clinical Outcomes of the EXCELLENT Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) have equivalent short-term angiographic and clinical outcomes to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), but EES may be superior to SES with regard to long-term clinical safety. We report the 3-year clinical outcomes of EES and SES from the prospective EXCELLENT Randomized Trial (NCT00698607).Methods and Results:We randomly assigned 1,443 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention 3:1 to receive EES and SES, respectively. We investigated endpoints including target lesion failure (TLF) and individual clinical outcomes including stent thrombosis (ST) at 3 years. For EES and SES, the TLF rate was 4.82% and 4.12% (risk ratio [RR], 1.16, 95% CI: 0.65-2.06, P=0.62), respectively. Results were similar in other efficacy endpoints including target lesion revascularization. For safety endpoints, rate of all-cause death was significantly lower for EES (1.67%) than SES (3.57%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI: 0.23-0.94, P=0.03), while the incidence of cardiac death or myocardial infarction was numerically lower in EES. On 1-year landmark analysis, rates of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events were significantly lower for EES than SES. Definite or probable ST was numerically 3-fold higher for SES (1.37%) compared with EES (0.46%). CONCLUSIONS: EES and SES had similar efficacy with regard to 3-year outcomes in the EXCELLENT trial, while delayed safety events all trended to favor EES.

Impact of low high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol level on 2-year clinical outcomes after acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: It is still unclear whether low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) affects cardiovascular outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), especially in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A total of 984 AMI patients with diabetes mellitus from the DIabetic Acute Myocardial InfarctiON Disease (DIAMOND) Korean multicenter registry were divided into two groups based on HDL-C level on admission: normal HDL-C group (HDL-C ≥ 40 mg/dL, n = 519) and low HDL-C group (HDL-C < 40 mg/dL, n = 465). The primary endpoint was 2-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). RESULTS: The median follow-up duration was 730 days. The 2-year MACE rates were significantly higher in the low HDL-C group than in the normal HDL-C group (MACE, 7.44% vs. 3.49%, p = 0.006; cardiac death, 3.72% vs. 0.97%, p = 0.004; non-fatal MI, 1.75% vs. 1.55%, p = 0.806; TVR, 3.50% vs. 0.97%, p = 0.007). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the low HDL-C group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE compared to the normal HDL-C group (log-rank p = 0.013). After adjusting for conventional risk factors, Cox proportional hazards analysis suggested that low HDL-C was an independent risk predictor for MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 3.075, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.034-9.144, p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes mellitus, low HDL-C remained an independent risk predictor for MACE after adjusting for multiple risk factors during 2-year follow-up of AMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was the sub-analysis of the prospective multi-center registry of DIAMOND (Diabetic acute myocardial infarction Disease) in Korea. This is the observational study supported by Bayer HealthCare, Korea. Study number is 15614. First patient first visit was 02 April 2010 and last patient last visit was 09 December 2013.

Comparison of 2-year mortality according to obesity in stabilized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus after acute myocardial infarction: results from the DIAMOND prospective cohort registry.

BACKGROUND: After acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the replicated phenomenon of obesity paradox, i.e., obesity appearing to be associated with increased survival, has not been evaluated in stabilized (i.e., without clinical events within 1 month post AMI) Asian patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: Among 1192 patients in the DIabetic Acute Myocardial InfarctiON Disease (DIAMOND) Korean multicenter registry between April 2010 and June 2012, 2-year cardiac and all-cause death were compared according to obesity (body mass index ≥25 kg/m(2)) in 1125 stabilized DM patients. RESULTS: Compared with non-obese DM patients (62% of AMI patients), obese DM patients had: higher incidence of dyslipidemia (31 vs. 24%, P < 0.01); lower incidence of chronic kidney disease (26 vs. 33%) (P < 0.01); higher left ventricular ejection fraction after AMI (53 ± 11 vs. 50 ± 12%, P < 0.001); and lower 2-year cardiac and all-cause death occurrence (0.7 vs. 3.6% and 1.9 vs. 5.2%, both P < 0.01) and cumulative incidence in Kaplan-Meier analysis (P < 0.005, respectively). Likewise, both univariate and multivariate Cox hazard regression analyses adjusted for the respective confounders showed that obesity was associated with decreased risk of both cardiac [HR, 0.18 (95% CI 0.06-0.60), P = 0.005; and 0.24 (0.07-0.78), P = 0.018, respectively] and all-cause death [0.34 (0.16-0.73), P = 0.005; and 0.44 (0.20-0.95), P = 0.038]. CONCLUSIONS: In a Korean population of stabilized DM patients after AMI, non-obese patients appear to have higher cardiac and all-cause mortality compared with obese patients after adjusting for confounding factors.

The Prognostic Value of the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Is Dependent upon the Severity of Mitral Regurgitation in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.

The prognostic value of the left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been questioned even though it is an accurate marker of left ventricle (LV) systolic dysfunction. This study aimed to examine the prognostic impact of LVEF in patients with AMI with or without high-grade mitral regurgitation (MR). A total of 15,097 patients with AMI who received echocardiography were registered in the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) between January 2005 and July 2011. Patients with low-grade MR (grades 0-2) and high-grade MR (grades 3-4) were divided into the following two sub-groups according to LVEF: LVEF ≤ 40% (n = 2,422 and 197, respectively) and LVEF > 40% (n = 12,252 and 226, respectively). The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, and all-cause death during the first year after registration. Independent predictors of mortality in the multivariate analysis in AMI patients with low-grade MR were age ≥ 75 yr, Killip class ≥ III, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide > 4,000 pg/mL, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ≥ 2.59 mg/L, LVEF ≤ 40%, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, PCI was an independent predictor in AMI patients with high-grade MR. No differences in primary endpoints between AMI patients with high-grade MR (grades 3-4) and EF ≤ 40% or EF > 40% were noted. MR is a predictor of a poor outcome regardless of ejection fraction. LVEF is an inadequate method to evaluate contractile function of the ischemic heart in the face of significant MR.

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).

Six-month versus 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of drug-eluting stents: the Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher to Reduce Late Loss After Stenting (EXCELLENT) randomized, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after implantation of drug-eluting coronary stents remains undetermined. We aimed to test whether 6-month DAPT would be noninferior to 12-month DAPT after implantation of drug-eluting stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 1443 patients undergoing implantation of drug-eluting stents to receive 6- or 12-month DAPT (in a 1:1 ratio). The primary end point was a target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 12 months. Rates of target vessel failure at 12 months were 4.8% in the 6-month DAPT group and 4.3% in the 12-month DAPT group (the upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 2.4%; P=0.001 for noninferiority with a predefined noninferiority margin of 4.0%). Although stent thrombosis tended to occur more frequently in the 6-month DAPT group than in the 12-month group (0.9% versus 0.1%; hazard ratio, 6.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-49.96; P=0.10), the risk of death or myocardial infarction did not differ in the 2 groups (2.4% versus 1.9%; hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-2.47; P=0.58). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, target vessel failure occurred more frequently in the 6-month DAPT group than in the 12-month group (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-7.03; P=0.005) among diabetic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Six-month DAPT did not increase the risk of target vessel failure at 12 months after implantation of drug-eluting stents compared with 12-month DAPT. However, the noninferiority margin was wide, and the study was underpowered for death or myocardial infarction. Our results need to be confirmed in larger trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00698607.

Study design and rationale of "a multicenter, open-labeled, randomized controlled trial comparing three 2nd-generation drug-eluting stents in real-world practice" (CHOICE trial).

BACKGROUND: The second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have shown superiority in many studies relating to safety and efficacy when compared with the first-generation DES. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety among the second-generation DES after long-term follow-up. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-labeled trial will directly compare the efficacy and safety among the patients treated with either everolimus-eluting stent (EES), zotarolimus-eluting stent with biolinx polymer (ZES-R), or biolimus-eluting stent (BES) with minimal exclusion criteria. The primary end point is a patient-oriented composite consisted of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 24-month clinical follow-up post-index procedure. With the hypothesis that "BES is non-inferior to EES" or "BES is non-inferior to ZES-R" in primary end point, approximately 2,600 patients will be assigned to one of the types of stents using a web-based randomization system. CONCLUSIONS: The CHOICE trial will directly compare the efficacy and safety of EES, ZES-R, and BES in everyday clinical practice for long-term follow-up.

The impact of vascular access for in-hospital major bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome at moderate- to very high-bleeding risk.

The aim of our study was to determine the impact of vascular access on in-hospital major bleeding (IHMB) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We analyzed 995 patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina at the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) moderate- to very high-bleeding risk scores in trans-radial intervention (TRI) retrospective registry from 16 centers in Korea. A total of 402 patients received TRI and 593 patients did trans-femoral intervention (TFI). The primary end-point was IHMB as defined in the CRUSADE. There were no significant differences in in-hospital and 1-yr mortality rates between two groups. However, TRI had lower incidences of IHMB and blood transfusion than TFI (6.0% vs 9.4%, P = 0.048; 4.5% vs 9.4%, P = 0.003). The patients suffered from IHMB had higher incidences of in-hospital and 1-yr mortality than those free from IHMB (3.1% vs 15.0%, P < 0.001; 7.2% vs 30.0%, P < 0.001). TRI was an independent negative predictor of IHMB (odds ratio, 0.305; 95% confidence interval, 0.109-0.851; P = 0.003). In conclusions, IHMB is still significantly correlated with in-hospital and 1-yr mortality. Our study suggests that compared to TFI, TRI could reduce IHMB in patients with ACS at moderate- to very high-bleeding risk.

Prasugrel-Based De-Escalation in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome According to Renal Function.

Background: Patients with coronary artery disease and impaired renal function are at higher risk for both bleeding and ischemic adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objectives: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of a prasugrel-based de-escalation strategy in patients with impaired renal function. Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS study. Patients with available estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (n = 2,311) were categorized into 3 groups. (high eGFR: >90 mL/min; intermediate eGFR: 60 to 90 mL/min; and low eGFR: <60 mL/min). The end points were bleeding outcomes (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or higher), ischemic outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, repeated revascularization, and ischemic stroke), and net adverse clinical event (including any clinical event) at 1-year follow-up. Results: Prasugrel de-escalation was beneficial regardless of baseline renal function (P for interaction = 0.508). The relative reduction in bleeding risk from prasugrel de-escalation was higher in the low eGFR group than in both the intermediate and high eGFR groups (relative reductions, respectively: 64% (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15-0.83) vs 50% (HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.90) and 52% (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.21-1.13) (P for interaction = 0.646). Ischemic risk from prasgurel de-escalation was not significant in all eGFR groups (HR: 1.18 [95% CI: 0.47-2.98], HR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.53-1.69], and HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.26-1.39]) (P for interaction = 0.119). Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving PCI, prasugrel dose de-escalation was beneficial regardless of the baseline renal function.

Randomized, multicenter, parallel, open, phase 4 study to compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin/amlodipine polypill versus atorvastatin/amlodipine polypill in hypertension patient with dyslipidemia.

The authors performed this study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin (RSV)/amlodipine (AML) polypill compared with those of atorvastatin (ATV)/AML polypill. We included 259 patients from 21 institutions in Korea. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, or ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of the RSV 10.20 mg/AML 5 mg via percentage changes in LDL-C after 8 weeks of treatment, compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. There was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (full analysis set [FAS]: -7.08%, 95% CI: -11.79 to -2.38, p = .0034, per-protocol analysis set [PPS]: -6.97%, 95% CI: -11.76 to -2.19, p = .0046). Also, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (FAS: -10.13%, 95% CI: -15.41 to -4.84, p = .0002, PPS: -10.96%, 95% CI: -15.98 to -5.93, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the adverse events rates between RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, and ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg. In conclusion, while maintaining safety, RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg more effectively reduced LDL-C compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg (Clinical trial: NCT03951207).

Public Reporting on the Quality of Care in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: The Korean Experience.

Public reporting is a way to promote quality of healthcare. However, evidence supporting improved quality of care using public reporting in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is disputed. This study aims to describe the impact of public reporting of AMI care on hospital quality improvement in Korea. Patients with AMI admitted to the emergency room with ICD-10 codes of I21.0 to I21.9 as the primary or secondary diagnosis were identified from the national health insurance claims data (2007-2012). Between 2007 and 2012, 43,240/83,378 (51.9%) patients manifested ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Timely reperfusion rate increased (ß = 2.78, p = 0.001). The mortality rate of STEMI patients was not changed (ß = -0.0098, p = 0.384) but that of NSTEMI patients decreased (ß = -0.465, p = 0.001). Public reporting has a substantial impact on the process indicators of AMI in Korea because of the increased reperfusion rate. However, the outcome indicators such as mortality did not significantly change, suggesting that public reporting did not necessarily improve the quality of care.

Erratum: Correction of Text in the Article "Prasugrel-based De-Escalation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With STEMI".

This corrects the article on p. 304 in vol. 52, PMID: 35129316.

Prasugrel-based De-Escalation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With STEMI.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. RESULTS: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48-2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). CONCLUSIONS: Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled, Factorial Design, Phase III Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy of Pitavastatin and Ezetimibe Versus Monotherapy of Pitavastatin in Patients With Primary Hypercholesterolemia.

PURPOSE: Pitavastatin is a unique lipophilic statin with moderate efficacy in lowering LDL-C levels by 30% to 50% with a tolerable safety profile. However, the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to pitavastatin in patients with dyslipidemia has not been well investigated. Therefore, the objective of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, Phase III study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy with those of pitavastatin monotherapy in Korean patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: Korean men and women aged >19 and <80 years with primary hypercholesterolemia requiring medical treatment were included in this study. During the 8-week screening period, all patients were instructed to make therapeutic lifestyle changes. The screening period consisted of a 4-week washout period and a placebo run-in period (4-8 weeks). During treatment period I, patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 treatments: pitavastatin 2 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, pitavastatin 2 mg, pitavastatin 4 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, or pitavastatin 4 mg. The 8-week double-blind treatment period then commenced. Adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs were assessed in all patients. FINDINGS: The percentages in LDL-C from baseline after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment decreased significantly in the pooled pitavastatin/ezetimibe (-52.8% [11.2%]) and pooled pitavastatin (-37.1% [14.1%]) groups. Treatment with pitavastatin/ezetimibe resulted in a significantly greater LDL-C-lowering effect than that with pitavastatin (difference, -15.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, -18.7 to -12.9; P < 0.001). The precentages of achieving LDL-C goal in pooled pitavastatin/ezetimibe and pooled pitavastatin groups were 94.2% and 69.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions. Serious AEs were comparable between the groups. IMPLICATIONS: Pitavastatin and ezetimibe combinations effectively and safely decreased LDL-C levels by >50% in patients with dyslipidemia. The safety and tolerability of pitavastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy were comparable with those of pitavastatin monotherapy. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04584736.

Comparing two-stent strategies for bifurcation coronary lesions: which vessel should be stented first, the main vessel or the side branch?

This study compared two-stent strategies for treatment of bifurcation lesions by stenting order, 'main across side first (A-family)' vs 'side branch first (S-family). The study population was patients from 16 centers in Korea who underwent drug eluting stent implantation with two-stent strategy (A-family:109, S-family:140 patients). The endpoints were cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) during 3 years. During 440.8 person-years (median 20.2 months), there was 1 cardiac death, 4 MIs (including 2 STs), and 12 TLRs. Cumulative incidence of cardiac death, MI and ST was lower in A-family (0% in A-family vs 4.9% in S-family, P = 0.045). However, TLR rates were not different between the two groups (7.1% vs 6.2%, P = 0.682). Final kissing inflation (FKI) was a predictor of the hard-endpoint (hazard ratio 0.061; 95% CI 0.007-0.547, P = 0.013), but was not a predictor of TLR. The incidence of hard-endpoint of S-family with FKI was comparable to A-family, whereas S-family without FKI showed the poorest prognosis (1.1% vs 15.9%, retrospectively; P = 0.011). In conclusion, 'A-family' seems preferable to 'S-family' if both approaches are feasible. When two-stent strategy is used, every effort should be made to perform FKI, especially in 'S-family'.

Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio as a Predictor of Venous Thromboembolism after Total Knee Replacement.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially serious complication after total knee replacement (TKR), and recent guideline recommends thromboprophylaxis for VTE after TKR. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has emerged as a simple and new prognostic biomarker for several cardiovascular diseases. This study was performed to investigate the precise incidence of postoperative VTE and the role of NLR for predicting VTE in patients receiving thromboprophylaxis after TKR. We retrospectively enrolled 264 patients undergoing TKR who underwent routine screening enhanced pulmonary artery and lower extremity venography computed tomography (CT) scan within 7 postoperative days. Biochemical tests were performed within 2 weeks prior to surgery, and the NLR was defined as the absolute neutrophil count in peripheral blood divided by lymphocyte count. All patients received thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin postoperatively. Of 264 patients, 102 (38.6%) were diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism on CT scan. Preoperative NLR was significantly higher in patients with postoperative VTE compared with that in patients without VTE (2.57 ± 1.59 vs. 2.11 ± 1.10, p = 0.011). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that a preoperative NLR of 1.90 was the best cutoff value for the prediction of postoperative VTE (sensitivity 57.8%, specificity 55.6%, and area under curve 0.589). In the multivariate analysis, a preoperative NLR ≥1.90 was a sole independent predictor of postoperative VTE (odds ratio: 1.95, 95% computed tomography: 1.16-3.31, p = 0.013). The present study shows a higher incidence of VTE (38.6%) after TKR in patients receiving thromboprophylaxis than that reported in previous studies. Furthermore, preoperative NLR was significantly higher in patients with postoperative VTE, and a high preoperative NLR (≥1.90) was an independent predictor of VTE after TKR. NLR measurement may be a simple and useful method for the prediction of VTE in patients undergoing TKR.

Three-month dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of zotarolimus-eluting stents: the DATE (Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy AfterImplantation of Endeavor Stent) registry.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy remains controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between December 2006 and March 2008, 823 patients were enrolled in a prospective multicenter registry for 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin 100-200mg+clopidogrel 75 mg daily) followed by aspirin mono-therapy after zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). Major exclusion criteria were: cardiogenic shock, stent thrombosis (ST)-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) within 48h, previous drug-eluting stent implantation, severe left ventricular dysfunction, bifurcation lesions requiring 2-stenting, left main and graft lesions. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, MI, or ST at 1 year. The median duration of dual antiplatelet therapy was 95 days (interquartile range 90-101). At 1 year, 3 patients (0.4%) had cardiac deaths, 3 patients (0.4%) had MI, and 4 patients (0.5%) had definite or probable ST, leading to the primary outcome in 5 patients (0.6%). Death, MI, or any revascularization occurred in 68 patients (8.3%). Among patients who were event-free at 3 months (n=812), clopidogrel was discontinued at 3 months in 661 patients and was continued for longer than 3 months in 151 patients. Discontinuation of clopidogrel at 3 months did not increase the primary outcome (HR 0.90; 95%CI, 0.09-9.02), death, MI, or any revascularization (HR 0.89; 95%CI, 0.48-1.67) after adjustment for the propensity score. CONCLUSIONS: Three-month dual antiplatelet therapy seems to be feasible after ZES implantation in relatively low-risk patients.

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents With Biolimus-Eluting Stents in All-Comer Patients.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data comparing the Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with the BioMatrix biolimus-eluting stent (BES). METHODS: This open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial enrolled all-comer patients to be randomly treated with either BES, EES, or ZES in a 1:1:1 ratio in 15 centers across South Korea. The primary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 24 months. The BES was compared with the EES and the ZES by intention-to-treat analyses with a noninferiority margin of 3.8%, respectively. RESULTS: Because of slow recruitment and low event rates, this trial was prematurely terminated after enrollment of 1935 (75%) of the intended 2580 patients. Of the 1911 patients randomized to either EES (n=638), BES (n=634), or ZES (n =639), the rate of device-oriented composite outcome was 3.6%, 2.2%, and 3.9%, respectively, at 24 months (BES versus EES: absolute risk difference -1.4% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: -3.2%]; Pfor noninferiority <0.001; BES versus ZES: absolute risk difference -1.7% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: -3.6%]; Pfor noninferiority <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The BES was noninferior to either the EES or the ZES in all-comer patients for device-oriented composite outcome at the 24-month follow-up. However, caution is advised regarding interpretation of these results due to the premature termination of this study. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01397175.