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).

Preventive percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy alone for the treatment of vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaques (PREVENT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome and sudden cardiac death are often caused by rupture and thrombosis of lipid-rich atherosclerotic coronary plaques (known as vulnerable plaques), many of which are non-flow-limiting. The safety and effectiveness of focal preventive therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention of vulnerable plaques in reducing adverse cardiac events are unknown. We aimed to assess whether preventive percutaneous coronary intervention of non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques improves clinical outcomes compared with optimal medical therapy alone. METHODS: PREVENT was a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial done at 15 research hospitals in four countries (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and New Zealand). Patients aged 18 years or older with non-flow-limiting (fractional flow reserve >0·80) vulnerable coronary plaques identified by intracoronary imaging were randomly assigned (1:1) to either percutaneous coronary intervention plus optimal medical therapy or optimal medical therapy alone, in block sizes of 4 or 6, stratified by diabetes status and the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention in a non-study target vessel. Follow-up continued annually in all enrolled patients until the last enrolled patient reached 2 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable or progressive angina, assessed in the intention-to-treat population at 2 years. Time-to-first-event estimates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared with the log-rank test. This report is the principal analysis from the trial and includes all long-term analysed data. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02316886, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2015, and Sept 29, 2021, 5627 patients were screened for eligibility, 1606 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned to percutaneous coronary intervention (n=803) or optimal medical therapy alone (n=803). 1177 (73%) patients were men and 429 (27%) were women. 2-year follow-up for the primary outcome assessment was completed in 1556 (97%) patients (percutaneous coronary intervention group n=780; optimal medical therapy group n=776). At 2 years, the primary outcome occurred in three (0·4%) patients in the percutaneous coronary intervention group and in 27 (3·4%) patients in the medical therapy group (absolute difference -3·0 percentage points [95% CI -4·4 to -1·8]; p=0·0003). The effect of preventive percutaneous coronary intervention was directionally consistent for each component of the primary composite outcome. Serious clinical or adverse events did not differ between the percutaneous coronary intervention group and the medical therapy group: at 2 years, four (0·5%) versus ten (1·3%) patients died (absolute difference -0·8 percentage points [95% CI -1·7 to 0·2]) and nine (1·1%) versus 13 (1·7%) patients had myocardial infarction (absolute difference -0·5 percentage points [-1·7 to 0·6]). INTERPRETATION: In patients with non-flow-limiting vulnerable coronary plaques, preventive percutaneous coronary intervention reduced major adverse cardiac events arising from high-risk vulnerable plaques, compared with optimal medical therapy alone. Given that PREVENT is the first large trial to show the potential effect of the focal treatment for vulnerable plaques, these findings support consideration to expand indications for percutaneous coronary intervention to include non-flow-limiting, high-risk vulnerable plaques. FUNDING: The CardioVascular Research Foundation, Abbott, Yuhan Corp, CAH-Cordis, Philips, and Infraredx, a Nipro company.

Prognostic Implications of Quantitative Flow Ratio and Plaque Characteristics in Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Treatment Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a method for evaluating fractional flow reserve without the use of an invasive coronary pressure wire or pharmacological hyperemic agent. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic implications of QFR and plaque characteristics in patients who underwent intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided treatment for intermediate lesions. METHODS: Among the IVUS-guided strategy group in the FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis) trial, vessels suitable for QFR analysis were included in this study. High-risk features were defined as low QFR (≤0.90), quantitative high-risk plaque characteristics (qn-HRPCs) (minimal lumen area ≤3.5 mm2, or plaque burden ≥70%), and qualitative high-risk plaque characteristics (ql-HRPCs) (attenuated plaque, positive remodeling, or plaque rupture) assessed using IVUS. The primary clinical endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 415 (46.1%) vessels could be analyzable for QFR. The numbers of qn-HRPCs and ql-HRPCs increased with decreasing QFR. Among deferred vessels, those with 3 high-risk features exhibits a significantly higher risk of TVF compared with those with ≤2 high-risk features (12.0% vs 2.7%; HR: 4.54; 95% CI: 1.02-20.29). CONCLUSIONS: Among the IVUS-guided deferred group, vessels with qn-HRPC and ql-HRPC with low QFR (≤0.90) exhibited a significantly higher risk for TVF compared with those with ≤2 features. Integrative assessment of angiography-derived fractional flow reserve and anatomical and morphological plaque characteristics is recommended to improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing IVUS-guided deferred treatment.

Surveillance Stress Testing After Percutaneous Intervention for Patients With Multivessel or Left Main Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surveillance strategy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for high-risk patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the prognostic role of routine functional testing in patients with multivessel or left main CAD who underwent PCI. METHODS: The POST-PCI (Pragmatic Trial Comparing Symptom-Oriented Versus Routine Stress Testing in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial randomized high-risk PCI patients to routine functional testing at 1 year or standard care alone during follow-up. This analysis focused on participants with multivessel or left main CAD. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina at 2 years. RESULTS: Among 1,706 initially randomized patients, 1,192 patients with multivessel (n = 833) or left main (n = 359) were identified, with 589 in the functional testing group and 603 in the standard care group. Two-year incidences of primary outcome were similar between the functional testing group and the standard care group (6.2% vs 5.7%, respectively; HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.68-1.74; P = 0.73). This trend persisted in both groups of multivessel (6.2% vs 5.7%; HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.62-1.89; P = 0.78) and left main disease (6.2% vs 5.7%; HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.46-2.56; P = 0.85) (P for interaction = 0.90). Routine surveillance functional testing was associated with increased rates of invasive angiography and repeat revascularization beyond 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with multivessel or left main CAD who underwent PCI, there was no incremental clinical benefit from routine surveillance functional-testing compared with standard care alone during follow-up. (Pragmatic Trial Comparing Symptom-Oriented Versus Routine Stress Testing in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [POST-PCI]; NCT03217877).

Distal Radial Access for Coronary Procedures in a Large Prospective Multicenter Registry: The KODRA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Distal radial access (DRA) as an alternative access route lacks evidence, despite its recent reputation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of DRA on the basis of daily practice. METHODS: The KODRA (Korean Prospective Registry for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach) trial was a prospective multicenter registry conducted at 14 hospitals between September 2019 and September 2021. The primary endpoints were the success rates of coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The secondary endpoints included successful distal radial artery puncture, access-site crossover, access site-related complications, bleeding events, and predictors of puncture failure. RESULTS: A total of 4,977 among 5,712 screened patients were recruited after the exclusion of 735 patients. The primary endpoints, the success rates of CAG and PCI via DRA, were 100% and 98.8%, respectively, among successful punctures of the distal radial artery (94.4%). Access-site crossover occurred in 333 patients (6.7%). The rates of distal radial artery occlusion and radial artery occlusion by palpation were 0.8% (36 of 4,340) and 0.8% (33 of 4,340) at 1-month follow-up. DRA-related bleeding events were observed in 3.3% of patients, without serious hematoma. Multilevel logistic regression analysis identified weak pulse (OR: 9.994; 95% CI: 7.252-13.774) and DRA experience <100 cases (OR: 2.187; 95% CI: 1.383-3.456) as predictors of puncture failure. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale prospective multicenter registry, DRA demonstrated high success rates of CAG and PCI, with a high rate of puncture success but low rates of distal radial artery occlusion, radial artery occlusion, bleeding events, and procedure-related complications. Weak pulse and DRA experience <100 cases were predictors of puncture failure. (Korean Prospective Registry for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Distal Radial Approach [KODRA]; NCT04080700).

Physiology- or Imaging-Guided Strategies for Intermediate Coronary Stenosis.

Importance: Treatment strategies for intermediate coronary lesions guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) have shown comparable outcomes. Identifying low-risk deferred vessels to ensure the safe deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and high-risk revascularized vessels that necessitate thorough follow-up can help determine optimal treatment strategies. Objectives: To investigate outcomes according to treatment types and FFR and IVUS parameters after FFR- or IVUS-guided treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with intermediate coronary stenosis from the Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial, an investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial that assigned patients into an IVUS-guided strategy (which recommended PCI for minimum lumen area [MLA] ≤3 mm2 or 3 mm2 to 4 mm2 with plaque burden [PB] ≥70%) or an FFR-guided strategy (which recommended PCI for FFR ≤0.80). Data were analyzed from November to December 2022. Exposures: FFR or IVUS parameters within the deferred and revascularized vessels. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and revascularization at 2 years. Results: A total of 1619 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.6] years; 1137 [70.2%] male) with 1753 vessels were included in analysis. In 950 vessels for which revascularization was deferred, incidence of TVF was comparable between IVUS and FFR groups (3.8% vs 4.1%; P = .72). Vessels with FFR greater than 0.92 in the FFR group and MLA greater than 4.5 mm2 or PB of 58% or less in the IVUS group were identified as low-risk deferred vessels, with a decreased risk of TVF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.09-0.71]; P = .009). In 803 revascularized vessels, the incidence of TVF was comparable between IVUS and FFR groups (3.6% vs 3.7%; P = .95), which was similar in the revascularized vessels undergoing PCI optimization (4.2% vs 2.5%; P = .31). Vessels with post-PCI FFR of 0.80 or less in the FFR group or minimum stent area of 6.0 mm2 or less or with PB at stent edge greater than 58% in the IVUS group had an increased risk for TVF (HR, 7.20 [95% CI, 3.20-16.21]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with intermediate coronary stenosis, FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies showed comparable outcomes in both deferred and revascularized vessels. Binary FFR and IVUS parameters could further define low-risk deferred vessels and high-risk revascularized vessels.

Routine stress testing in diabetic patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: the POST-PCI trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal follow-up surveillance strategy for high-risk diabetic patients with had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unknown. METHODS: The POST-PCI (Pragmatic Trial Comparing Symptom-Oriented versus Routine Stress Testing in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) study was a randomized trial comparing a follow-up strategy of routine functional testing at 1 year vs. standard care alone after high-risk PCI. Randomization was stratified according to diabetes status. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina at 2 years. RESULTS: Among 1706 randomized patients, participants with diabetes (n = 660, 38.7%) had more frequent comorbidities and a higher prevalence of complex anatomical or procedural characteristics than those without diabetes (n = 1046, 61.3%). Patients with diabetes had a 52% greater risk of primary composite events [hazard ratio (HR) 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-2.27; P = .039]. The 2-year incidences of the primary composite outcome were similar between strategies of routine functional testing or standard care alone in diabetic patients (7.1% vs. 7.5%; HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.53-1.66; P = .82) and non-diabetic patients (4.6% vs. 5.1%; HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.51-1.55; P = .68) (interaction term for diabetes: P = .91). The incidences of invasive coronary angiography and repeat revascularization after 1 year were higher in the routine functional-testing group than the standard-care group irrespective of diabetes status. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being at higher risk for adverse clinical events, patients with diabetes who had undergone high-risk PCI did not derive incremental benefit from routine surveillance stress testing compared with standard care alone during follow-up.

Angiographic Severity of the Nonculprit Lesion and the Efficacy of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Complete Revascularization in Patients With AMI: FRAME-AMI Substudy.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for noninfarct-related artery (IRA) lesions with angiographically severe stenosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction is unclear. METHODS: Among 562 patients from the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infraction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) who were randomly allocated into either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions, the current study evaluated the relationship between non-IRA stenosis measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and the efficacy of FFR-guided PCI. The incidence of the primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) was compared between FFR- and angiography-guided PCI according to non-IRA stenosis severity (QCA stenosis ≥70% or <70%). RESULTS: A total of 562 patients were assigned to FFR-guided (n=284) versus angiography-guided PCI (n=278). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary end point occurred in 14 of 181 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 31 of 197 patients with angiography-guided PCI among patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (8.5% versus 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.22-0.80]; P=0.008), while occurred in 4 of 103 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 9 of 81 patients with angiography-guided PCI among those with QCA stenosis <70% (3.9% versus 11.1%; P=0.315). There was no significant interaction between treatment strategy and non-IRA stenosis severity (P for interaction=0.636). FFR-guided PCI was associated with the reduction of death and myocardial infarction in both patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (6.7% versus 15.1%; P=0.008) and those with QCA stenosis <70% (1.0% versus 9.6%; P=0.042) compared with angiography-guided PCI. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, FFR-guided PCI tended to have a lower risk of primary end point than angiography-guided PCI regardless of non-IRA stenosis severity without significant interaction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

Clinical Outcomes of Deferred Lesions by IVUS Versus FFR-Guided Treatment Decision.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the safety of deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention based on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) findings. The current study sought to compare the prognosis between deferred lesions based on IVUS and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided treatment decision. METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR randomized trial (Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) that compared 2-year clinical outcomes between IVUS- and FFR-guided treatment decision on intermediate coronary artery lesions using predefined criteria. In both IVUS and FFR groups, vessels were classified into deferred or revascularized vessels, and patients were classified as those with or without deferred lesions. Vessel-oriented composite outcomes (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) in deferred vessels and patient-oriented composite outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularization) in patients with deferred lesions were compared between the IVUS and FFR groups. RESULTS: A total of 1682 patients and 1820 vessels were analyzed, of which 922 patients and 989 vessels were deferred. At 2 years, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of vessel-oriented composite outcomes in deferred vessels between IVUS (n=375) and FFR (n=614) groups (3.8% versus 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.47-1.75]; P=0.77). The risk of vessel-oriented composite outcomes was comparable between deferred and revascularized vessels following treatment decision by IVUS (3.8% versus 3.5%; hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.54-2.19]; P=0.81) and FFR (4.1% versus 3.6%; hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.56-2.32]; P=0.72). In comparison of patient-oriented composite outcomes in patients with deferred lesions, there was no significant difference between the IVUS (n=357) and FFR (n=565) groups (6.2% versus 5.9%; hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.61-1.80]; P=0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis, deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention based on IVUS-guided treatment decision showed comparable risk of clinical events with FFR-guided treatment decision. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02673424.

Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Disease in Diabetics: The BEST Extended Follow-Up Study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is associated with more complex coronary artery diseases. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a preferred revascularization strategy over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetics with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the different prognostic effects of revascularization strategies according to the diabetes status from the randomized BEST (Randomized Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) trial. METHODS: Patients (n = 880) with MVD were randomly assigned to undergo PCI with an everolimus-eluting stent vs CABG stratified by diabetics (n = 363) and nondiabetics (n = 517). The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization during a median follow-up of 11.8 years (IQR: 10.6-12.5 years). RESULTS: In diabetics, the primary endpoint rate was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (43% and 32%; HR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.12-2.08; P = 0.008). However, in nondiabetics, no significant difference was found between the groups (PCI group, 29%; CABG group, 29%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.67-1.39; P = 0.86; Pinteraction= 0.009). Irrespective of the presence of diabetes, no significant between-group differences were found in the rate of a safety composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and mortality rate. However, the rate of any repeat revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetics with MVD, CABG was associated with better clinical outcomes than PCI. However, the mortality rate was similar between PCI and CABG irrespective of diabetes status during an extended follow-up. (Ten-Year Outcomes of Randomized Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease [BEST Extended], NCT05125367; Randomized Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease [BEST], NCT00997828).

Impact of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on progression of aortic valve sclerosis and stenosis.

Background: Little research has been assessed atherosclerotic risk factors at various stages of calcific aortic valve disease. This study sought to determine risk factors of patients with aortic valve sclerosis (AVS) and mild to moderate aortic stenosis (AS). Methods: The study included 1,007 patients diagnosed with AVS or mild to moderate AS according to echocardiographic criteria. Patients were identified as a rapid progression group if the annualized difference in peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) between two echocardiographic examinations was >0.08 m/s/yr in AVS and >0.3 m/s/yr in AS, respectively. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to assess the factors associated with rapid disease progression or progression to severe AS. Results: Among 526 AVS patients, higher LDL-C level (odds ratio [OR] 1.22/per 25 mg/dl higher LDL-C, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.43) was significantly associated with rapid disease progression. Compared to patients with LDL-C level <70 mg/dl, the adjusted OR for rapid progression were 1.32, 2.15, and 2.98 for those with LDL-C level of 70-95 mg/dl, 95-120 mg/dl, and ≥120 mg/dl, respectively. Among 481 mild to moderate AS patients, the baseline Vmax (OR 1.79/per 0.5 m/s higher Vmax, 95% CI 1.18-2.70) was associated with rapid progression. Compared to patients with Vmax 2.0-2.5 m/s, the adjusted OR for rapid progression were 2.47, 2.78, and 3.49 for those with Vmax of 2.5-3.0 m/s, 3.0-3.5 m/s, and 3.5-4.0 m/s, respectively. LDL-C and baseline Vmax values were independently associated with progression to severe AS. Conclusion: Atherosclerotic risk factors such as LDL-C were significantly associated with the rapid progression in AVS and baseline Vmax was important in the stage of mild to moderate AS.

Sex Differences in Fractional Flow Reserve- or Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: A recent randomized trial reported fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy was noninferior to the intracoronary ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI strategy with respect to clinical outcomes with fewer revascularizations. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the sex differences in treatment and clinical outcomes according to physiology- or imaging-guided PCI strategies. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of the FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasonography to Guide PCI) trial, the impact of sex on procedural characteristics, PCI rate, and outcomes according to different strategies and treatment types (PCI vs deferral of PCI) was analyzed. The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) at 24 months, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Of 1,619 patients, 30% were women. Compared with men, women had a smaller minimal lumen area, smaller plaque burden, and higher FFR. They had a lower PCI rate (40.8% vs 47.9%; P = 0.008), which was mainly contributed by FFR guidance. Overall, women showed a lower TVF rate (2.4% vs 4.5%). According to the treatment type, the cumulative incidence of TVF was lower in women than in men among those with the deferral of PCI (1.7% vs 5.2%). However, this trend was not observed in patients who underwent PCI. In both women and men, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between the FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of intermediate stenosis, despite receiving fewer interventions, women had more favorable outcomes than men. The use of FFR led to a lower PCI rate but had a similar prognostic value compared with IVUS in both women and men.

Salvage percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the superficial femoral artery in the diabetic foot with deteriorating limb ischemia.

INTRODUCTION: PAD frequently co-occurs with diabetes, often leading to chronic nonhealing wounds. Foot gangrene and amputation are common outcomes of untreated CLI. CASE REPORT: A 67-year-old male with diabetes and deteriorating limb ischemia following surgical stress underwent successful surgical repair after emergency PTA of the SFA for extensive heel necrosis. After surgical debridement of necrotic heel tissue, the ABI on the affected side suddenly reduced to 0.36, but it improved to 1.06 at 4 weeks following stenting angioplasty, allowing the subsequent flap surgery to repair the heel defect. At the 1-year follow-up visit, the patient exhibited durable heel coverage and the restoration of weightbearing function. No signs or symptoms indicative of restenosis were evident in the blood vessel treated with stent angioplasty. CONCLUSION: This case highlights the importance of proper evaluation of critical ischemic conditions and the need for prompt endovascular interventions in preserving the at-risk diabetic foot.

Clinical safety and effectiveness of the Genoss drug-eluting stent in real-world clinical practice.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Genoss DES™ is a novel, biodegradable, polymer-coated, sirolimus-eluting stent with a cobalt- chromium stent platform and thin strut. Although the safety and effectiveness of this stent have been previously investigated, real-world clinical outcomes data are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this prospective, multicenter trial was to evaluate the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Genoss DES™ in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The Genoss DES registry is a prospective, single-arm, observational trial for evaluation of clinical outcomes after Genoss DES™ implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from 17 sites in South Korea. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite outcome of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 1,999 patients (66.4 ± 11.1 years of age; 72.8% male) were analyzed. At baseline, 62.8% and 36.7% of patients had hypertension and diabetes, respectively. The implanted stent number, diameter, and length per patient were 1.5 ± 0.8, 3.1 ± 0.5 mm, and 37.0 ± 25.0 mm, respectively. The primary endpoint occurred in 1.8% patients, with a cardiac death rate of 1.1%, target vessel-related MI rate of 0.2%, and clinically driven TLR rate of 0.8%. CONCLUSION: In this real-world registry, the Genoss DES™ demonstrated excellent safety and effectiveness at 12 months among all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. These findings suggest that the Genoss DES™ may be a viable treatment option for patients with coronary artery disease.

Preventive PCI or medical therapy alone for vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaque: Rationale and design of the randomized, controlled PREVENT trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes are commonly caused by the rupture of vulnerable plaque, which often appear angiographically not severe. Although pharmacologic management is considered standard therapy for stabilizing plaque vulnerability, the potential role of preventive local treatment for vulnerable plaque has not yet been determined. The PREVENT trial was designed to compare preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) with OMT alone in patients with functionally nonsignificant high-risk vulnerable plaques. METHODS: The PREVENT trial is a multinational, multicenter, prospective, open-label, active-treatment-controlled randomized trial. Eligible patients have at least 1 angiographically significant stenosis (diameter stenosis >50% by visual estimation) without functional significance (fractional flow reserve [FFR] >0.80). Target lesions are assessed by intracoronary imaging and must meet at least 2 imaging criteria for vulnerable plaque; (1) minimal lumen area <4.0 mm2; (2) plaque burden >70%; (3) maximal lipid core burden index in a 4 mm segment >315 by near infrared spectroscopy; and (4) thin cap fibroatheroma as determined by virtual histology or optical coherence tomography. Enrolled patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either preventive PCI with either bioabsorbable vascular scaffolds or metallic everolimus-eluting stents plus OMT or OMT alone. The primary endpoint is target-vessel failure, defined as the composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischemic-driven target-vessel revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable or progressive angina, at 2 years after randomization. RESULTS: Enrollment of a total of 1,608 patients has been completed. Follow-up of the last enrolled patient will be completed in September 2023 and primary results are expected to be available in early 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The PREVENT trial is the first large-scale, randomized trial to evaluate the effect of preventive PCI on non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques containing multiple high-risk features that is appropriately powered for clinical outcomes. PREVENT will provide compelling evidence as to whether preventive PCI of vulnerable plaques plus OMT improves patient outcomes compared with OMT alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT02316886. KEY POINTS: The PREVENT trial is the first, large-scale randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of preventive PCI on non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaque with high-risk features. It will provide compelling evidence to determine whether PCI of focal vulnerable plaques on top of OMT improves patient outcomes.

How can progression be predicted in patients with mild to moderate aortic valve stenosis?

AIMS: The pressure increase per time unit (dP/dt) in aortic stenosis (AS) jet velocity is assumed to have inter-individual variability in the progressive AS stage. We sought to examine the association of aortic valve (AoV) Doppler-derived dP/dt in patients with mild to moderate AS with risk of progression to severe disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 481 patients diagnosed with mild or moderate AS [peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) between 2 and 4 m/s] according to echocardiographic criteria were included. AoV Doppler-derived dP/dt was determined by measuring the time needed for the pressure to increase at a velocity of the AoV jet from 1 m/s to 2 m/s. During a median follow-up period of 2.7 years, 12 of 404 (3%) patients progressed from mild to severe AS and 31 of 77 (40%) patients progressed from moderate to severe AS. AoV Doppler-derived dP/dt had a good ability to predict risk of progression to severe AS (area under the curve = 0.868) and the cut-off value was 600 mmHg/s. In multivariable logistic regression, initial AoV calcium score (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.73; P = 0.006) and AoV Doppler-derived dP/dt (aOR, 1.52/100 mmHg/s higher dP/dt; 95% CI, 1.10-2.05; P = 0.012) were associated with progression to severe AS. CONCLUSION: AoV Doppler-derived dP/dt above 600 mmHg/s was associated with risk of AS progression to the severe stage in patients with mild to moderate AS. This may be useful in individualized surveillance strategies for AS progression.

Prasugrel dose de-escalation in diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Diseases-Comparison of Reduction of Prasugrel Dose or Polymer Technology in ACS Patients) randomized trial. The efficacy and safety of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy (prasugrel 5 mg daily) were compared with conventional therapy (prasugrel 10 mg daily) in patients with DM. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) class ≥2 bleeding events. The secondary ischaemic outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, defined as the composite of cardiac death, non-fatal MI, ST, or ischaemic stroke. Of 2338 patients randomized, 990 had DM. The primary endpoint of NACE occurred in 38 patients (7.6%) receiving prasugrel dose de-escalation and in 53 patients (11.3%) receiving conventional therapy among patients with DM [hazard ratio (HR) 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.99; P = 0.049]. Prasugrel dose de-escalation as compared with conventional therapy did not increase the risk of ischaemic events (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.56-1.88; P = 0.927) but decreased BARC class ≥2 bleeding in patients with DM (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.84; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Prasugrel dose de-escalation compared with conventional therapy may reduce the risk of net clinical outcomes, mostly driven by a reduction in bleeding without an increase in ischaemic events in patients with DM. Trial Registration: HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS, NCT02193971, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02193971.

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.