Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasonography to Guide PCI.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary artery disease who are being evaluated for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), procedures can be guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) for decision making regarding revascularization and stent implantation. However, the differences in clinical outcomes when only one method is used for both purposes are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1682 patients who were being evaluated for PCI for the treatment of intermediate stenosis (40 to 70% occlusion by visual estimation on coronary angiography) in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either an FFR-guided or IVUS-guided procedure. FFR or IVUS was to be used to determine whether to perform PCI and to assess PCI success. In the FFR group, PCI was to be performed if the FFR was 0.80 or less. In the IVUS group, the criteria for PCI were a minimal lumen area measuring either 3 mm2 or less or measuring 3 to 4 mm2 with a plaque burden of more than 70%. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months after randomization. We tested the noninferiority of the FFR group as compared with the IVUS group (noninferiority margin, 2.5 percentage points). RESULTS: The frequency of PCI was 44.4% among patients in the FFR group and 65.3% among those in the IVUS group. At 24 months, a primary-outcome event had occurred in 8.1% of the patients in the FFR group and in 8.5% of those in the IVUS group (absolute difference, -0.4 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval, 2.2 percentage points; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). Patient-reported outcomes as reported on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate stenosis who were being evaluated for PCI, FFR guidance was noninferior to IVUS guidance with respect to the composite primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. (Funded by Boston Scientific; FLAVOUR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02673424.).

Impact of proton pump inhibitor use on clinical outcomes in East Asian patients receiving clopidogrel following drug-eluting stent implantation.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is common, but PPI may reduce the antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We evaluated the impact of PPI use on clinical outcomes in post-PCI patients, by incorporating P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) and CYP2C19 genotyping results. METHODS: From a multicenter registry of patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stent implantation and received clopidogrel-based dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), patients who were prescribed a PPI at the time of PCI (PPI users) were compared to those who were not (non-users). The primary outcome included all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or cerebrovascular accident at 12 months. Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] types 3-5) and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (BARC types 3-5) were important secondary outcomes. The adjusted outcomes were compared using a 1:1 propensity-score (PS) matching and competing risk analysis. RESULTS: Of 13,160 patients, 2,235 (17.0%) were prescribed PPI, with an average age of 65.4 years. PPI users had higher on-treatment PRU levels than non-users. After PS matching, the primary outcome occurred in 51 patients who were PPI users (cumulative incidence, 4.7%) and 41 patients who were non-users (cumulative incidence, 3.7%; log-rank p = 0.27). In carriers of both CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles, PPI use was linked to an increased risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-8.78). The incidence of major bleeding and GI bleeding (BARC types 3-5) was comparable between PPI users and non-users in the PS-matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In post-PCI patients receiving clopidogrel-based DAPT, PPI use was not linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, but there was a small but significant increase in on-treatment PRU. Future research using a more individualized approach would further elucidate these interactions and guide evidence-based clinical practices.

Optimal antithrombotic strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation: Design and rationale of the randomized ADAPT AF-DES trial.

BACKGROUND: Both anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies are recommended after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although contemporary guidelines recommend discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy 1 year after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation due to excessive bleeding risk, supporting randomized trials are still lacking. METHODS: The ADAPT AF-DES trial is a multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial, enrolling 960 patients with AF with a CHA2DS2-VASc score > 1, who underwent PCI with DES implantation at least 12 months before enrollment. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to receive either non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) monotherapy or NOAC plus clopidogrel combination therapy. The primary outcome is net adverse clinical event (NACE) at 1 year after randomization, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, systemic embolism, and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria. We hypothesize that NOAC monotherapy would be non-inferior to NOAC plus clopidogrel combination therapy for NACE in patients with AF beyond 12 months after DES implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The ADAPT AF-DES trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOAC monotherapy versus NOAC plus clopidogrel combination therapy in patients with AF beyond 12 months after PCI with DES implantation. The ADAPT AF-DES trial will provide robust evidence for an optimal antithrombotic strategy in patients with AF after DES implantation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT04250116.

Prognostic Implication of Platelet Reactivity According to Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Status in Patients Treated With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Analysis of the PTRG-DES Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often exhibit reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the impact of LV dysfunction status in conjunction with platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes has not been previously investigated. METHODS: From the multicenter PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term prognosis in DES-treated patients) consortium, the patients were classified as preserved-EF (PEF: LVEF ≥ 50%) and reduced-EF (REF: LVEF< 5 0%) group by echocardiography. Platelet reactivity was measured using VerifyNow P2Y12 assay and high platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as PRU ≥ 252. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at 5 years after PCI. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3-5. RESULTS: A total of 13,160 patients from PTRG-DES, 9,319 (79.6%) patients with the results of both PRU and LVEF were analyzed. The incidence of MACCE and major bleeding was higher in REF group as compared with PEF group (MACCEs: hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-2.55; major bleeding: HR 1.78, P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.39-2.78). The highest rate of MACCEs was found in patients with REF and HPR, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (HR 3.14 in REF(+)/HPR(+) vs. PEF(+)/HPR(-) group, P < 0.01, 95% CI 2.51-3.91). The frequency of major bleeding was not associated with the HPR in either group. CONCLUSION: LV dysfunction was associated with an increased incidence of MACCEs and major bleeding in patients who underwent PCI. The HPR status further exhibited significant increase of MACCEs in patients with LV dysfunction in a large, real-world registry. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028.

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs). METHODS: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). RESULTS: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03068494.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography-guided strategy in acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a randomized trial.

AIMS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-infarct-related artery reduces death or MI. However, whether selective PCI guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is superior to routine PCI guided by angiography alone is unclear. The current trial sought to compare FFR-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI for non-infarct-related artery lesions among patients with acute MI and multivessel disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with acute MI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful PCI of the infarct-related artery were randomly assigned to either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis of >50%) for non-infarct-related artery lesions. The primary end point was a composite of time to death, MI, or repeat revascularization. A total of 562 patients underwent randomization. Among them, 60.0% underwent immediate PCI for non-infarct-related artery lesions and 40.0% were treated by a staged procedure during the same hospitalization. PCI was performed for non-infarct-related artery in 64.1% in the FFR-guided PCI group and 97.1% in the angiography-guided PCI group, and resulted in significantly fewer stent used in the FFR-guided PCI group (2.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.5 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years (interquartile range: 2.7-4.1 years), the primary end point occurred in 18 patients of 284 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group and in 40 of 278 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group (7.4% vs. 19.7%; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.75; P = 0.003). The death occurred in five patients (2.1%) in the FFR-guided PCI group and in 16 patients (8.5%) in the angiography-guided PCI group; MI in seven (2.5%) and 21 (8.9%), respectively; and unplanned revascularization in 10 (4.3%) and 16 (9.0%), respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute MI and multivessel coronary artery disease, a strategy of selective PCI using FFR-guided decision-making was superior to a strategy of routine PCI based on angiographic diameter stenosis for treatment of non-infarct-related artery lesions regarding the risk of death, MI, or repeat revascularization.

Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy of Telmisartan/Amlodipine/Rosuvastatin in Patients with Dyslipidemia and Hypertension: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Hypertension and dyslipidemia significantly contribute to cardiovascular disease development. Their coexistence poses challenges in managing multiple medications, influencing treatment adherence. Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combined treatment approach using a fixed-dose combination therapy. Methods: This multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, Phase IV trial was named Telmisartan/Amlodipine/Rosuvastatin from Samjin Pharmaceuticals and evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination treatment in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia. They were randomly assigned to 2 fixed-dose combination therapy groups, telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/rosuvastatin 10 mg (TEL/ALD/RSV) or amlodipine 5 mg/atorvastatin 10 mg (ALD/ATV) after washout/run-in period. The primary outcomes were the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure and the percentage change of LDL-C after 8 weeks of medical treatment. Adverse drug reactions and events were assessed. Results: Of a total of 304 patients who underwent screening, 252 were randomized to the TEL/ALD/RSV group (125 patients) and the ALD/ATV group (127 patients). The mean (SD) ages of the TEL/ALD/RSV group and the ALD/ATV group were 67.4 (11.3) and 68.2 (10.6) years, respectively (P = 0.563). The least-squares mean (SE) in mean sitting systolic blood pressure changes between the 2 groups were -16.27 (0.93) mm Hg in the TEL/ALD/RSV group, -6.85 (0.92) mm Hg in the ALD/ATV group (LSM difference = -9.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, -11.99 to -6.84; P < .001). For LDL-C level changes, a significant difference was noted between the 2 groups: -50.03% (1.18%) in the TEL/ALD/RSV group, -39.60% (1.17%) in the ALD/ATV group (LSM difference = -10.43%; 95% CI, -13.70 to -7.16; P < .001). No severe adverse events were observed. Conclusions: TEL/ALD/RSV proved to be more efficient than ALD/ATV in lowering blood pressure and reducing LDL-C levels among patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia, with no notable safety concerns. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2024; XX:XXX-XXX). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03860220.

Implication of diabetic status on platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation: results from the PTRG-DES consortium.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with thrombogenicity, clinically manifested with atherothrombotic events after percutaneous cutaneous intervention (PCI). This study aimed to investigate association between DM status and platelet reactivity, and their prognostic implication in PCI-treated patients. METHODS: The Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term Prognosis-Platelet Function Test (PTRG-PFT) cohort was established to determine the linkage of platelet function test (PFT) with long-term prognosis during dual antiplatelet therapy including clopidogrel in patients treated with drug-eluting stent (DES). We assessed platelet reactivity using VerifyNow and 'high platelet reactivity (HPR)' was defined as ≥ 252 P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or stroke. RESULTS: Between July 2003 and Aug 2018, DES-treated patients with available PFT were enrolled (n = 11,714). Diabetic patients demonstrated significant higher levels of platelet reactivity (DM vs. non-DM: 225.7 ± 77.5 vs. 213.6 ± 79.1 PRU, P < 0.001) and greater prevalence of HPR compared to non-diabetic patients (38.1% vs. 32.0%, P < 0.001). PRU level and prevalence of HPR were significantly associated with insulin requirement and HbA1c level, as well as diabetic status. DM status and HPR phenotype had a similar prognostic implication, which showed the synergistic clinical impact on MACCE. Association between PRU level and MACCE occurrence seemed higher in diabetic vs. non-diabetic patients. In non-DM patients, HPR phenotype did not significantly increase the risk of MACCE (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj]: 1.073; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.869-1.325; P = 0.511), whereas HPR was an independent determinant for MACCE occurrence among diabetic patients (HRadj: 1.507; 95% CI: 1.193-1.902; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The levels of on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity are determined by diabetic status and the severity of DM. In addition, HPR phenotype significantly increases the risk of MACCE only in diabetic patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov . Unique identifier: NCT04734028.

Impact of guideline-directed medical therapy on 5-year mortality in patients with newly diagnosed peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend that patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) should be treated with antithrombotic agents, renin-angiotensin-system blockers, and statins. However, the clinical impact of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) on long-term mortality in patients with newly diagnosed PAD remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of GDMT and evaluate 5-year mortality according to GDMT after PAD diagnosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, using nationwide health insurance claims data in Korea, included patients newly diagnosed with PAD between 2006 and 2015. GDMT was defined as the use of all drugs, including antithrombotic agents, renin-angiotensin-system blockers, and statins, within 3 months of PAD diagnosis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We investigated 19,561 newly diagnosed patients with PAD without proven cardiovascular disease. Among the study population, 4378 patients (22.4%) were categorized in the GDMT and 15,183 (77.6%) in the non-GDMT groups. During the 5-year follow-up, GDMT showed a lower incidence of all-cause mortality than that of non-GDMT (2.8% vs 4.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.329; 95% confidence interval, 0.257-0.421; P < .001). Even in the propensity-matched population, GDMT showed a lower mortality rate than non-GDMT (hazard ratio, 0.283; 95% confidence interval, 0.217-0.370; P < .001). As the number of guideline-recommended drugs increased, the mortality rate decreased proportionately. CONCLUSIONS: After PAD diagnosis, GDMT was associated with a lower incidence of mortality regardless of proven cardiovascular disease. This retrospective analysis showed an insufficient prevalence of GDMT among patients with PAD in real-world practice.

In-hospital outcome differences between transradial and transfemoral coronary approaches: Data from the Korean percutaneous coronary intervention registry.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate specific subgroups in which the benefit of transradial coronary interventions (TRIs) would be enhanced. BACKGROUND: The advantage of TRIs over transfemoral coronary interventions (TFIs) might differ according to a given clinical condition, urgency of the procedure, and operator volume pattern. METHODS: Using a cohort from the 2014 Korean Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry, in-hospital outcomes of the TRI group (n = 22,993) were matched to those of the TFI group (n = 15,581). After propensity score matching, the composite endpoints between the groups and subgroups for all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MIs), or transfusions were analyzed. RESULTS: The composite endpoints occurred less frequently in the TRI group than the TFI group [2.1% vs. 5.5%, OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55-0.72]. The TRI group had a lower rate of death (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.33-0.60) and nonfatal MI (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.81) than the TFI group. The TRI group required fewer transfusions than the TFI group (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88). TRI benefits were consistent across subgroups except patients with chronic kidney disease and those treated in low tertile PCI volume centers. The favorable outcome of TRI was greater in the elderly (≥75 years), patients with ST-elevation MI, those who underwent emergent PCI, and those treated in high tertile PCI volume hospitals (P for the interaction <0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to TFI, TRI had favorable composite in-hospital outcomes. TRI benefits were pronounced in high-risk clinical settings and in high PCI volume centers.