Long-term impact of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor based on short-term treatment response in heart failure.

AIMS: The long-term effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) remains uncertain in patients who have experienced improvements in left ventricular (LV) systolic function or significant LV reverse remodelling following a certain period of treatment. It is also unclear how ARNI performs in patients who have not shown these improvements. This study aimed to assess the impact of prolonged ARNI use compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with and without significant treatment response after 1 year of heart failure (HF) treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present study enrolled patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who were treated with either ARNI or ACEIs/ARBs within 1 year of undergoing index echocardiography. After 1 year of treatment, patients were reclassified into the following groups: (i) patients with HF with improved ejection fraction and persistent HFrEF and (ii) patients with and without LV reverse remodelling based on the follow-up echocardiography. The effect of ARNI versus that of ACEIs/ARBs in each group was assessed from the time of categorizing into new groups using the composite event of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization. A total of 671 patients with HFrEF (age, 66.4 ± 14.1 years; males, 66.8%) were included, and 133 (19.8%) composite events of death and rehospitalization for HF were observed during the follow-up (median follow-up, 44 [interquartile range, 34-51] months). ARNI had a significantly lower event rate than ACEIs/ARBs in patients with HF with improved ejection fraction (7.0% vs. 30.4%, P = 0.020) and those with persistent HFrEF (17.6% vs. 49.7%, P < 0.001). Irrespective of whether patients exhibited LV reverse remodelling (15.8% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.001) or not (15.0% vs. 54.9%, P < 0.001), ARNIs were associated with a significantly lower event rate than ACEIs/ARBs. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of significant treatment response measured by either LVEF or LV reverse remodelling after 1 year of treatment, the extended utilization of ARNI demonstrated a more favourable prognosis than that of ACEIs/ARBs in patients with HFrEF.

Predictors of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation with CHA2 DS2 -VASc score of 0.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulant therapy has been important for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, it was not recommended due to its relatively higher risk of bleeding than its lower risk of stroke in patients with a CHA2 DS2 -VASc score of 0. HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to evaluate the predictors of stroke in AF patients with very low risk of stroke. METHODS: Between 1990 and 2020, 542 patients with non-valvular AF (NVAF) with a CHA2 DS2 -VASc score of 0 followed up for at least 6 months were enrolled. Patients with only being woman as a risk factor were included as a CHA2 DS2 -VASc score of 0 in this study. The primary outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. RESULTS: The primary outcome rate was 0.78%/year. In Cox hazard model, age of ≥50 years at diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] 6.710, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.811-24.860, p = .004), LVEDD of ≥46 mm (HR 4.513, 95% CI 1.038-19.626, p = .045), and non-paroxysmal AF (HR 5.575, 95% CI 1.621-19.175, p = .006) were identified as independent predictors of stroke or systemic embolism. Patients with all three independent predictors had a higher risk of stroke or systemic embolism (4.21%/year), whereas those without did not have a stroke or systemic embolism. CONCLUSION: The annual stroke or systemic embolism rate in NVAF patients with CHA2 DS2 -VASc score of 0 was 0.78%/year, and age at AF diagnosis, LVEDD, and non-paroxysmal AF were independent predictors of stroke or systemic embolism in patients considered to have a very low risk of stroke.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient Delay and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: It has been known that the fear of contagion during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) creates time delays with subsequent impact on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, difference of time delay and clinical outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI between the COVID-19 pandemic and pre-pandemic era has not been fully investigated yet in Korea. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on time delays and clinical outcome in patients with STEMI or non-STEMI compared to the same period years prior. METHODS: A total of 598 patients with STEMI (n = 195) or non-STEMI (n = 403) who underwent coronary angiography during the COVID-19 pandemic (February 1 to April 30, 2020) and pre-pandemic era (February 1 to April 30, 2017, 2018, and 2019) were analyzed in this study. Main outcomes were the incidence of time delay, cardiac arrest, and in-hospital death. RESULTS: There was 13.5% reduction in the number of patients hospitalized with AMI during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era. In patients with STEMI, door to balloon time tended to be longer during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era (55.7 ± 12.6 minutes vs. 60.8 ± 13.0 minutes, P = 0.08). There were no significant differences in cardiac arrest (15.6% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.397) and in-hospital mortality (15.6% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.397) between pre-pandemic and the pandemic era. In patients with non-STEMI, symptom to door time was significantly longer (310.0 ± 346.2 minutes vs. 511.5 ± 635.7 minutes, P = 0.038) and the incidence of cardiac arrest (0.9% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.017) and in-hospital mortality (0.3% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.045) was significantly greater during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era. Among medications, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin type 2 receptor blockers (ACE-I/ARBs) were underused in STEMI (64.6% vs. 45.8%, P = 0.021) and non-STEMI (67.8% vs. 57.0%, P = 0.061) during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a considerable reduction in hospital admissions for AMI, time delay, and underuse of ACE-I/ARBs for the management of AMI, and this might be closely associated with the excess death in Korea.

Impact of intravascular ultrasound and final kissing balloon dilatation on long-term clinical outcome in percutaneous revascularization with 1-stent strategy for left main coronary artery stenosis in drug-eluting stent era.

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain whether intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use and final kissing balloon (FKB) dilatation would be standard care of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a simple 1-stent technique in unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. This study sought to investigate the impact of IVUS use and FKB dilatation on long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in PCI with a simple 1-stent technique for unprotected LMCA stenosis. METHODS: Between June 2006 and December 2012, 255 patients who underwent PCI with 1 drug-eluting stent for LMCA stenosis were analyzed. Mean follow-up duration was 1663 ± 946 days. Long-term MACEs were defined as death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) and repeat revascularizations. RESULTS: During the follow-up, 72 (28.2%) MACEs occurred including 38 (14.9%) deaths, 21 (8.2%) nonfatal MIs and 13 (5.1%) revascularizations. The IVUS examination and FKB dilatation were done in 158 (62.0%) and 119 (46.7%), respectively. IVUS use (20.3 versus 41.2%; log-rank P < 0.001), not FKB dilatation (30.3 versus 26.5%; log-rank P = 0.614), significantly reduced MACEs. In multivariate analysis, IVUS use was a negative predictor of MACEs [hazards ratio 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.88; P = 0.017], whereas FKB dilatation (hazard ratio 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01-2.80; P = 0.047) was a positive predictor of MACEs. In bifurcation LMCA stenosis, IVUS use (18.7 versus 48.0%; log-rank P < 0.001) significantly reduced MACEs. In nonbifurcation LMCA stenosis, FKB dilatation showed a trend of increased MACEs (P = 0.076). CONCLUSION: IVUS examination is helpful in reducing clinical events in PCI for LMCA bifurcation lesions, whereas mandatory FKB dilatation after the 1-stent technique might be harmful in nonbifurcation LMCA stenosis.