Comparison of cardiocerebrovascular disease incidence between angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker users in a real-world cohort.

BACKGROUND: Both angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are known to be effective in managing cardiovascular diseases, but more evidence supports the use of an ACEI. This study investigated the difference in cardiovascular disease incidence between relatively low-compliance ACEIs and high-compliance ARBs in the clinical setting. METHODS: Patients who were first prescribed ACEIs or ARBs at two tertiary university hospitals in Korea were observed in this retrospective cohort study for the incidence of heart failure, angina, acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, and major adverse cardiovascular events for 5 years after the first prescription. Additionally, 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used based on the presence or absence of statins. RESULTS: Overall, 2,945 and 9,189 patients were prescribed ACEIs and ARBs, respectively. When compared to ACEIs, the incidence of heart failure decreased by 52% in those taking ARBs (HR [95% CI] = 0.48 [0.39-0.60], P < 0.001), and the incidence of cerebrovascular disease increased by 62% (HR [95% CI] = 1.62 [1.26-2.07], P < 0.001). The incidence of ischemic heart disease (P = 0.223) and major adverse cardiovascular events (P = 0.374) did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: ARBs were not inferior to ACEIs in relation to reducing the incidence of cardiocerebrovascular disease in the clinical setting; however, there were slight differences for each disease. The greatest strength of real-world evidence is that it allows the follow-up of specific drug use, including drug compliance. Large-scale studies on the effects of relatively low-compliance ACEIs and high-compliance ARBs on cardiocerebrovascular disease are warranted in the future.

Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Gallic Acid-Eluting Stent in a Porcine Coronary Restenosis Model.

BACKGROUND: Gallic acid (3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoic acid) is a natural polyphenol and strong natural antioxidant found abundantly in red wine and green tea. The aim of this study was to examine the anti-inflammatory effect of a novel gallic acid-eluting stent in a porcine coronary restenosis model. METHODS: Fifteen pigs were randomized into three groups; in which a total of 30 coronary arteries (10 in each group) were implanted with gallic acid-eluting stents (GESs, n = 10), gallic acid and sirolimus-eluting stents (GSESs, n = 10), or sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs, n = 10). Histopathologic analysis was performed 28 days after stenting. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in injury score and fibrin score among the groups, however there were significant differences in the internal elastic lamina (4.0 ± 0.83 mm2 in GES vs. 3.0 ± 0.53 mm2 in GSES vs. 4.6 ± 1.43 mm2 in SES, p < 0.0001), lumen area (2.3 ± 0.49 mm2 in GES vs. 1.9 ± 0.67 mm2 in GSES vs. 2.9 ± 0.56 mm2 in SES, p < 0.0001), neointimal area (1.7 ± 0.63 mm2 in GES vs. 1.1 ± 0.28 mm2 in GSES vs. 1.7 ± 1.17 mm2 in SES, p < 0.05), and percent area of stenosis (42.4% ± 9.22% in GES vs. 38.2% ± 12.77% in GSES vs. 33.9% ± 15.64% in SES, p < 0.05). The inflammation score was significantly lower in the GES and GSES groups compared to that in the SES group [1.0 (range: 1.0 to 2.0) in GES vs. 1.0 (range: 1.0 to 1.0) in GSES vs. 1.5 (range: 1.0 to 3.0) in SES, p < 0.05]. CONCLUSIONS: The GES group had a greater percent area of stenosis than the SES group. Although gallic acid in the GES and GSES groups did not show a synergistic effect in suppressing neointimal hyperplasia, it resulted in greater inhibition of the inflammatory reaction in the porcine coronary restenosis model than in the SES group.

Comparison of the planned one- and elective two-stent techniques in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions with or without acute coronary syndrome from the COBIS II Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impacts of stent techniques on long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) for coronary bifurcation lesions in patients with or without acute coronary syndrome (ACS). BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the impacts of stent techniques for treating coronary bifurcation lesions in patients with and without ACS. METHODS: This multicenter registry enrolled 2,897 patients undergoing PCI with DES for coronary bifurcation lesions. We investigated the impacts of planned one-stent and elective two-stent techniques in patients with (n = 1,798) and those without (n = 1,099) ACS. Primary endpoint was the incidence of 3-year target-lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, and target-lesion revascularization. RESULTS: The planned one-stent technique reduced TLF rate compared to elective two-stent technique in the ACS cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.74; P = 0.001), and not in the non-ACS cohort (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.35-1.06; P = 0.079). After propensity score matching, the planned one-stent technique had a significantly lower TLF rate (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.29-0.74; P = 0.001) in patients with ACS, and it also showed a trend toward lower TLF rate with the planned one-stent technique in patients without ACS (9.0 vs. 14.5%, HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.32-1.14; P = 0.116). CONCLUSIONS: Planned one-stenting reduced TLF in patients with ACS and it also might be beneficial in those without ACS for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions.