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.

Comparison of Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy Versus Statin Monotherapy for Primary Prevention in Middle-Aged Adults.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middle-aged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. METHODS: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. RESULTS: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs. 10.1%; hazard ratio (HR), 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980-1.064; p=0.309). Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460-0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Blood pressure control in diabetic kidney disease: a post-hoc analysis of the FANTASTIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The target blood pressure (BP) value is unclear for diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effect of strict BP control or 'on treatment' BP on clinical outcomes in patients with DKD. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of the prespecified secondary outcomes of the FimAsartaN proTeinuriA SusTaIned reduCtion in comparison with losartan in diabetic chronic kidney disease (FANTASTIC) trial, a randomized multicenter double-blind phase III trial. Eligible patients were aged ≥ 19 years with DKD. We assigned 341 participants with DKD to BP control strategy (standard-systolic BP [SBP] < 140 mmHg versus strict-SBP < 130 mmHg). The outcome was the occurrence of cardiovascular events and renal events. Separate analyses were performed to compared the risk of outcome according to achieved average BP levels. RESULTS: A total of 341 participants were included in the analysis. Over a median follow-up of 2.8 years, cardiovascular/renal events were observed in 25 (7.3%) participants. Mean (SD) SBPs in the standard and strict BP control group were 140.2 (11.6) and 140.2 (11.9) mmHg, respectively. The strict BP control group did not show significantly reduced risk of cardiovascular/renal events (HR 1.32; 95% CI 0.60-2.92]). In the post-hoc analyses using achieved BP, achieved average SBP of 130-139 mmHg resulted in reduced risk of cardiovascular/renal events (HR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03-0.67) compared to achieved average SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, whereas further reduction in achieved average SBP < 130 mmHg did not impart additional benefits. CONCLUSION: In patients with DKD, targeting a SBP of less than 130 mmHg, as compared with less than 140 mmHg, did not reduce the rate of a composite of cardiovascular and renal events. Achieved SBP of 130-139 mmHg was associated with a decreased risk for the primary outcome in patients with DKD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTirals.gov Identifier: NCT02620306, registered December 3, 2015. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02620306 ).

Prognostic Impact of CYP2C19 Genotypes on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Older Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Carriers of CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles have increased adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention, but limited data are available for older patients. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of CYP2C19 genotypes on clinical outcomes in older patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study included 1201 older patients (aged ≥75 years) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and received clopidogrel-based dual antiplatelet therapy in South Korea. Patients were grouped on the basis of CYP2C19 genotypes. The primary outcome was 3-year major adverse cardiac events, defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. Older patients were grouped into 3 groups: normal metabolizer (36.6%), intermediate metabolizer (48.1%), and poor metabolizer (15.2%). The occurrence of the primary outcome was significantly different among the groups (3.1, 7.0, and 6.2% in the normal metabolizer, intermediate metabolizer, and poor metabolizer groups, respectively; P=0.02). The incidence rate of all-cause death at 3 years was greater in the intermediate metabolizer and poor metabolizer groups (8.1% and 9.2%, respectively) compared with that in the normal metabolizer group (3.5%, P=0.03) without significant differences in major bleeding. In the multivariable analysis, the intermediate metabolizer and poor metabolizer groups were independent predictors of 3-year clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In older patients, the presence of any CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele was found to be predictive of a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events within 3 years following percutaneous coronary intervention. This finding suggests a need for further investigation into an optimal antiplatelet strategy for older patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04734028.

Association of Age- and Body Mass Index-Stratified High On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity With Coronary Intervention Outcomes in East Asian Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although age and body mass index (BMI) significantly affect platelet reactivity units and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention, there are limited data on the relationship between high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) and clinical outcomes on age and BMI differences. Thus, we investigated the association of HPR with clinical outcomes according to age and BMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study analyzed 11 714 patients who underwent platelet function tests after percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), whereas the secondary end point was major bleeding. HPR was defined as platelet reactivity units ≥252. Patients were categorized by age (<67 years of age or ≥67 years of age) and BMI (≤22.6 kg/m2 or >22.6 kg/m2). Patients <67 years of age with HPR had increases in both MACCEs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.436 [95% CI, 1.106-1.867]; P=0.007) and major bleeding (adjusted HR, 1.584 [95% CI, 1.095-2.290]; P=0.015) compared with the those with non-HPR, respectively. In patients ≥67 years of age with HPR, there were no differences in MACCEs, but there was a decrease in major bleeding (adjusted HR, 0.721 [95% CI, 0.542-0.959]; P=0.024). Meanwhile, patients with HPR with BMI >22.6 kg/m2 had increases in MACCEs (adjusted HR, 1.387 [95% CI, 1.140-1.688]; P=0.001). No differences were shown in major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: HPR was linked to an increase in MACCEs or a decrease in major bleeding in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention, depending on age and BMI. This study is the first to observe that clinical outcomes in patients with HPR after percutaneous coronary intervention may vary based on age and BMI. Because the study is observational, the results should be viewed as hypothesis generating and emphasize the need for randomized clinical trials.

The Use of Coronary Imaging for Predicting Future Cardiovascular Events.

Background: Despite advancements in coronary artery disease (CAD) treatment with drug-eluting stent, its morbidity and mortality remain high. In context, intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly recommended for better clinical outcomes in patient with CAD. Near-infrared spectroscopy-intravascular ultrasound (NIRS-IVUS), as one of the intravascular imaging methods, is effective in detecting lipid-rich plaques, which is crucial for identifying high-risk or vulnerable plaques employing near-infrared light. High lipid core burden, as identified by NIRS-IVUS, correlates with an increased risk of adverse cardiac events and shows varying degrees of efficacy in plaque management and event prevention. Summary: This article addresses about how NIRS-IVUS can be used to predict event of CAD. The study highlights the crucial role of NIRS-IVUS in predicting future cardiovascular events. Findings indicate that the presence of high lipid core burden is related to increased risks of periprocedural myocardial infarction and reduced coronary flow during PCI. The study also outlines the predictive value of NIRS-IVUS in non-culprit lesions, where plaques with high lipid core burden significantly increase the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events as demonstrated in the PROSPECT II trial. In terms of therapeutic strategies, the study reviews the effectiveness of high-intensity lipid-lowering strategies in stabilizing vulnerable plaques, as evidenced in trials such as the YELLOW and PACMAN AMI trials. Key Messages: NIRS-IVUS emerges as a valuable diagnostic tool in treating CAD. It effectively identifies vulnerable plaques and aids in predicting and preventing future adverse cardiac events. However, to enhance its practicality and promote widespread adoption in clinical settings, further long-term outcome research of NIRS-IVUS-guided PCI is necessary. These efforts can potentially make NIRS-IVUS a more accessible and indispensable tool in cardiovascular disease management.

Quantitative Coronary Angiography vs Intravascular Ultrasonography to Guide Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) guidance promotes favorable outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), many catheterization laboratories worldwide lack access. Objective: To investigate whether systematic implementation of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) to assist angiography-guided PCI could be an alternative strategy to IVUS guidance during stent implantation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, open-label, noninferiority clinical trial enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with chronic or acute coronary syndrome and angiographically confirmed native coronary artery stenosis requiring PCI. Patients were enrolled in 6 cardiac centers in Korea from February 23, 2017, to August 23, 2021, and follow-up occurred through August 25, 2022. All principal analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Interventions: After successful guidewire crossing of the first target lesion, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either QCA- or IVUS-guided PCI. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was target lesion failure at 12 months, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed assuming an event rate of 8%, with the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI of the absolute difference in 12-month target lesion failure (QCA-guided PCI minus IVUS-guided PCI) to be less than 3.5 percentage points for noninferiority. Results: The trial included 1528 patients who underwent PCI with QCA guidance (763; mean [SD] age, 64.1 [9.9] years; 574 males [75.2%]) or IVUS guidance (765; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.5] years; 622 males [81.3%]). The post-PCI mean (SD) minimum lumen diameter was similar between the QCA- and IVUS-guided PCI groups (2.57 [0.55] vs 2.60 [0.58] mm, P = .26). Target lesion failure at 12 months occurred in 29 of 763 patients (3.81%) in the QCA-guided PCI group and 29 of 765 patients (3.80%) in the IVUS-guided PCI group (absolute risk difference, 0.01 percentage points [95% CI, -1.91 to 1.93 percentage points]; hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.60-1.68]; P = .99). There was no difference in the rates of stent edge dissection (1.2% vs 0.7%, P = .25), coronary perforation (0.2% vs 0.4%, P = .41), or stent thrombosis (0.53% vs 0.66%, P = .74) between the QCA- and IVUS-guided PCI groups. The risk of the primary end point was consistent regardless of subgroup, with no significant interaction. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that QCA and IVUS guidance during PCI showed similar rates of target lesion failure at 12 months. However, due to the lower-than-expected rates of target lesion failure in this trial, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02978456.

Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality for Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcome of ischemic cardiogenic shock (CS) requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is highly variable, necessitating appropriate assessment of prognosis. However, a systemic predictive model estimating the mortality of refractory ischemic CS is lacking. The PRECISE (Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality for Patients With Refractory Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support) score was developed to predict the prognosis of refractory ischemic CS due to acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were obtained from the multicenter CS registry RESCUE (Retrospective and Prospective Observational Study to Investigate Clinical Outcomes and Efficacy of Left Ventricular Assist Device for Korean Patients With Cardiogenic Shock) that consists of 322 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by refractory ischemic CS requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Fifteen parameters were selected to assess in-hospital mortality. The developed model was validated internally and externally using an independent external cohort (n=138). Among 322 patients, 138 (42.9%) survived postdischarge. Fifteen predictors were included for model development: age, diastolic blood pressure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, peak lactic acid, serum creatinine, lowest left ventricular ejection fraction, vasoactive inotropic score, shock to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation insertion time, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, use of intra-aortic balloon pump, continuous renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilator, successful coronary revascularization, and staged percutaneous coronary intervention. The PRECISE score yielded a high area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (0.894 [95% CI, 0.860-0.927]). External validation and calibration resulted in competent sensitivity (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.895 [95% CI, 0.853-0.930]). CONCLUSIONS: The PRECISE score demonstrated high predictive performance and directly translates into the expected in-hospital mortality rate. The PRECISE score may be used to support clinical decision-making in ischemic CS (www.theprecisescore.com). REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02985008.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe in patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, therapeutic confirmatory, phase III clinical trial.

This study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficacy of the blood pressure (BP) control and cholesterol-lowering effects and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe versus rosuvastatin and ezetimibe double therapy or telmisartan single therapy in dyslipidemia patients with hypertension. After a wash-out/therapeutic lifestyle change period of ≥4 weeks, a total of 100 eligible patients were randomized and received one of three treatments for 8 weeks: (1) telmisartan 80 mg/rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (TRE), (2) rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (RE), or (3) telmisartan 80 mg (T). The primary endpoint was the efficacy evaluation of TRE by comparing changes in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and mean percentage change in low-density lipoprotein-C (LDL-C) from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment. The least square (LS) mean (SE) changes in msSBP at 8 weeks compared with baseline were -23.02 (3.04) versus -7.18 (3.09) mmHg in the TRE and RE groups, respectively (p < .0001), and -25.80 (2.74) versus -14.92 (2.65) mmHg in the TRE and T groups, respectively (p = .0005). The percentage changes in the mean (SD) LDL-C at 8 weeks compared with baseline were -54.97% (3.49%) versus -0.17% (3.23%) in the TRE and T groups, respectively (p < .0001). No serious adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions occurred among the three groups. TRE therapy significantly decreased msSBP and LDL-C compared to RE or T therapy with comparable safety and tolerability profiles.

High platelet reactivity strongly predicts early stent thrombosis in patients with drug-eluting stent implantation.

Stent thrombosis (ST) is a fatal complication after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The association between P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) level and stent thrombosis occurrence remains unclear. Based on the multicenter, observational PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term proGnosis in DES-treated patients) registry of patients with drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation, a total of 11,714 patients with PRU values were analyzed. We sought to identify the predictors of early stent thrombosis (EST) and compared the primary outcome, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization, between EST and non-EST groups. EST, defined as definite ST within 1 month after index PCI, occurred in 51 patients. PRU values were significantly higher in the EST group (263.5 ± 70.8 vs. 217.5 ± 78.7, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, PRU ≥ 252 (OR, 5.10; 95% CI 1.58-16.46; p = 0.006) and aspirin reaction unit ≥ 414 (OR 4.85; 95% CI 1.07-21.97; p = 0.040) were independent predictors of EST. The cumulative incidence of primary composite outcome at one year was significantly higher in the EST group (38.2% vs. 3.9%, Log-rank p < 0.001). In patients treated with clopidogrel after successful DES implantation, EST was associated with higher platelet reactivities, and a greater risk of cardiovascular events.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028.

Guiding Intervention for Complex Coronary Lesions by Optical Coherence Tomography or Intravascular Ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) have shown comparable outcomes in guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, their comparative effectiveness in complex coronary artery lesions remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the effectiveness and safety of OCT-guided vs IVUS-guided PCI for complex coronary artery lesions. METHODS: This was a prespecified, main subgroup analysis of complex coronary artery lesions in the OCTIVUS (Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, which included unprotected left main disease, bifurcation disease, an aorto-ostial lesion, a chronic total occlusion, a severely calcified lesion, an in-stent restenotic lesion, a diffuse long lesion, or multivessel PCI. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: In 2,008 randomized patients, 1,475 (73.5%) underwent imaging-guided PCI for complex coronary artery lesions; 719 (48.7%) received OCT-guided and 756 (51.3%) IVUS-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.0 years, primary endpoint event had occurred in 47 patients (6.5%) in the OCT-guided group and in 56 patients (7.4%) in the IVUS-guided group (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.59-1.29; P = 0.50). These findings were consistent in adjusted analyses. The incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was similar between the 2 groups (1.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.46). The incidence of major procedural complications was lower in the OCT-guided group than in the IVUS-guided group (1.7% vs 3.4%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with complex coronary artery lesions, OCT-guided PCI showed a similar risk of primary composite event of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization as compared with IVUS-guided PCI. (Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [OCTIVUS]; NCT03394079).

Effect of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination vs. high-intensity statin therapy according to sex in patients with atherosclerosis.

We aimed to evaluate sex differences in the effects of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy (rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe) versus high-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg) monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This was a sex-specific subgroup analysis of the RACING trial that evaluated the interaction between sex and treatment strategies for the primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke at 3 years). Of 3780 patients in the RACING trial, 954 (25.2%) were women. Regardless of sex, the effect of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy on primary outcome compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy was similar (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [0.63-1.52] in women; HR 0.90 [0.71-1.14] in men). The rate of discontinuation or dose reduction of study drugs due to intolerance was lower in the ezetimibe combination group than in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group in both women (4.5% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.014) and men (4.8% vs. 8.0%, P < 0.001). LDL cholesterol levels of < 70 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years were more frequently achieved in the ezetimibe combination group than in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (all P < 0.001) in both sexes. There were no significant interactions between sex and treatment groups regarding the primary outcome, discontinuation, or dose reduction of study drugs, or the proportion of achievement of LDL cholesterol levels < 70 mg/dL. The effect of ezetimibe combination therapy for the 3-year composite outcomes was not different in both men and women. The benefits of ezetimibe combination therapy on LDL cholesterol lowering and drug tolerance were similarly observed regardless of sex.Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03044665.

Effectiveness of low-intensity atorvastatin 5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg combination therapy compared with moderate-intensity atorvastatin 10 mg monotherapy: A randomized, double-blinded, multi-center, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy and safety of low-intensity atorvastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy with moderate-intensity atorvastatin monotherapy in patients requiring cholesterol-lowering therapy. METHODS: At 19 centers in Korea, 290 patients were randomized to 4 groups: atorvastatin 5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg (A5E), ezetimibe 10 mg (E), atorvastatin 5 mg (A5), and atorvastatin 10 mg (A10). Clinical and laboratory examinations were performed at baseline, and at 4-week and 8-week follow-ups. The primary endpoint was percentage change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels at the 8-week follow-up. Secondary endpoints included percentage changes from baseline in additional lipid parameters. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar among the study groups. At the 8-week follow-up, percentage changes in LDL cholesterol levels were significantly greater in the A5E group (49.2%) than in the E (18.7%), A5 (27.9%), and A10 (36.4%) groups. Similar findings were observed regarding the percentage changes in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels. Triglyceride levels were also significantly decreased in the A5E group than in the E group, whereas high-density lipoprotein levels substantially increased in the A5E group than in the E group. In patients with low- and intermediate-cardiovascular risk, 93.3% achieved the target LDL cholesterol levels in the A5E group, 40.0% in the E group, 66.7% in the A5 group, and 92.9% in the A10 group. In addition, 31.4% of patients in the A5E group, 8.1% in E, 9.7% in A5, and 7.3% in the A10 group reached the target levels of both LDL cholesterol < 70 mg/dL and reduction of LDL ≥ 50% from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ezetimibe to low-intensity atorvastatin had a greater effect on lowering LDL cholesterol than moderate-intensity atorvastatin alone, offering an effective treatment option for cholesterol management, especially in patients with low and intermediate risks.

Predictors of in-hospital mortality after successful weaning of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock.

Limited knowledge exists regarding the predictors of mortality after successful weaning of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We aimed to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) after successful weaning from ECMO. Data were obtained from a multicenter registry of CS. Successful ECMO weaning was defined as survival with minimal mean arterial pressure (> 65 mmHg) for > 24 h after ECMO removal. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality after successful ECMO weaning. Among 1247 patients with CS, 485 received ECMO, and 262 were successfully weaned from ECMO. In-hospital mortality occurred in 48 patients (18.3%). Survivors at discharge differed significantly from non-survivors in age, cardiovascular comorbidities, cause of CS, left ventricular ejection fraction, and use of adjunctive therapy. Five independent predictors for in-hospital mortality were identified: use of continuous renal replacement therapy (odds ratio 5.429, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.468-11.940; p < 0.001), use of intra-aortic balloon pump (3.204, 1.105-9.287; p = 0.032), diabetes mellitus (3.152, 1.414-7.023; p = 0.005), age (1.050, 1.016-1.084; p = 0.003), and left ventricular ejection fraction after ECMO insertion (0.957, 0.927-0.987; p = 0.006). Even after successful weaning of ECMO, patients with irreversible risk factors should be recognized, and careful monitoring should be done for sign of deconditioning.

Impact of diabetes on long-term outcomes of bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention. An analysis from the BIFURCAT registry.

BACKGROUND: It is still unclear the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) in complex coronary lesions treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) which themselves are at increased incidence of adverse events. METHODS: BIFURCAT registry encompassed patients treated with PCI for coronary bifurcation lesion from the COBIS III and the RAIN registry. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major cardiovascular adverse event (MACE), a composite and mutual exclusive of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI) or target-lesion revascularization (TLR). A total of 5537 patients were included in the analysis and 1834 (33%) suffered from DM. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 21 months, diabetic patients had a higher incidence of MACE (17% vs. 9%, p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (9% vs. 4%, p < 0.001), TLR (5% vs. 3%, p = 0.001), MI (4% vs. 2%, p < 0.001), and stent thrombosis (ST) (2% vs. 1%, p = 0.007). After multivariate analysis, diabetes remained significantly associated with MACE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.37; confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.65; p = 0.001), all-cause death (HR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.24-2.19, p = 0.001), TLR (HR: 1.45; CI: 1.03-2.04; p = 0.031) and ST (HR: 1.73, CI: 1.04-2.88; p = 0.036), but not with MI (HR: 1.34; CI: 0.93-1.92; p = 0.11). Among diabetics, chronic kidney disease (HR: 2.99; CI: 2.21-4.04), baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (HR: 0.98; CI: 0.97-0.99), femoral access (HR: 1.62; CI: 1.23-2.15), left main coronary artery (HR: 1.44; CI: 1.06-1.94), main branch diameter (HR: 0.79; CI: 0.66-0.94) and final kissing balloon (HR: 0.70; CI: 0.52-0.93) were independent predictors of MACE at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DM treated with PCI for coronary bifurcations have a worse prognosis due to higher incidence of MACE, all-cause mortality, TLR and ST compared to the non-diabetics.

Efficacy and safety of standard dose triple combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 25 mg in primary hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter phase 3 trial.

The authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and characteristics of patients who respond well to standard dose triple combination therapy including chlorthalidone 25 mg with telmisartan 80 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg in hypertensive patients. This is a multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3, randomized trial. Patients are randomized to triple combination (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 12.5 mg, TEL/AML/CHTD group) or dual combination (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, TEL/AML group) treatment and then dose up titration to TEL 80/AML5/CHTD25mg and TEL80/AML5, respectively. The primary endpoint is the change of mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) at week 8. A Target BP achievement rate, a response rate, and the safety endpoints are also evaluated. Total 374 patients (mean age = 60.9 ± 10.7 years, male = 78.3%) were randomized to the study. The baseline MSSBPs/diastolic BPs were 149.9 ± 12.2/88.5 ± 10.4 mm Hg. After 8 weeks treatment, the change of MSSBPs at week 8 are -19.1 ± 14.9 mm Hg (TEL/AML/CHTD) and -11.4 ± 14.7 mm Hg (TEL/AML) (p < .0001). The achievement rates of target BP (53.8% vs. 37.8%, p = .0017) and responder rate (54.8% vs. 35.6%, p = .0001) at week 8 were significantly higher in TEL/AML/CHTD. There are no serious adverse event and no one discontinued medication due to adverse event. Among the TEL 80/AML5/CHTD25mg treatment group, patients of female or age ≥ 65 years old showed higher rate of target BP achievement than relatively young male. (61.4 vs. 46.8%, p = .042) Our study showed standard dose triple combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 25 mg is efficacious and safe in treatment of primary hypertension. Target BP achievement with triple therapy would be facilitated in female or old age.

Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided or Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The OCTIVUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided PCI. However, the comparative effectiveness of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI regarding clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned 2008 patients with significant coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either an OCT-guided or IVUS-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year, which was powered for noninferiority of the OCT group compared with the IVUS group. Safety outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: At 1 year, primary end point events occurred in 25 of 1005 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 2.5%) in the OCT group and in 31 of 1003 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 3.1%) in the IVUS group (absolute difference, -0.6 percentage points; upper boundary of one-sided 97.5% CI, 0.97 percentage points; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy was similar (14 patients [1.4%] in the OCT group versus 15 patients [1.5%] in the IVUS group; P=0.85). The incidence of major procedural complications was lower in the OCT group than in the IVUS group (22 [2.2%] versus 37 [3.7%]; P=0.047), although imaging procedure-related complications were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with significant coronary artery lesions, OCT-guided PCI was noninferior to IVUS-guided PCI with respect to the incidence of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. The selected study population and lower-than-expected event rates should be considered in interpreting the trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique number: NCT03394079.

Moderate-Intensity Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy vs High-Intensity Statin Monotherapy in Patients at Very High Risk of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis From the RACING Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High-intensity statin is strongly recommended in patients at very high risk (VHR) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, concerns about statin-associated adverse effects result in underuse of this strategy in practice. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination in VHR and non-VHR patients with ASCVD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc analysis of the Randomized Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Lipid Lowering With Statin Monotherapy vs Statin/Ezetimibe Combination for High-Risk Cardiovascular Disease (RACING) open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted from February 2017 to December 2018 at 26 centers in Korea. Study participants included patients with documented ASCVD. Data were analyzed from April to June 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (rosuvastatin, 10 mg, with ezetimibe, 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin, 20 mg). Patients at VHR for ASCVD were defined according to the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the 3-year outcome of cardiovascular death, coronary or peripheral revascularization, hospitalization of cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke. Results: A total of 3780 patients (mean [SD] age, 64 [10] years; 2826 male [75%]) in the RACING trial, 1511 (40.0%) were categorized as VHR, which was associated with a greater occurrence of the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15-1.75). There was no significant difference in the primary end point between those who received combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy among patients with VHR disease (11.2% vs 11.7%; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.30) and non-VHR disease (7.7% vs 8.7%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66-1.18). The median low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level was significantly lower in the combination therapy group than in the high-intensity statin group (VHR, 1 year: 57 [47-71] mg/dL vs 65 [53-78] mg/dL; non-VHR, 1 year: 58 mg/dL vs 68 mg/dL; P < .001). Furthermore, in both the VHR and non-VHR groups, combination therapy was associated with a significantly greater mean change in LDL-C level (VHR, 1 year: -19.1 mg/dL vs -10.1 mg/dL; 2 years: -22.3 mg/dL vs -13.0 mg/dL; 3 years: -18.8 mg/dL vs -9.7 mg/dL; non-VHR, 1 year: -23.7 mg/dL vs -12.5 mg/dL; 2 years: -25.2 mg/dL vs -15.1 mg/dL; 3 years: -23.5 mg/dL vs -12.6 mg/dL; all P < .001) and proportion of patients with LDL-C level less than 70 mg/dL (VHR, 1 year: 73% vs 58%; non-VHR, 1 year: 72% vs 53%; P < .001). Discontinuation or dose reduction of the lipid-lowering drug due to intolerance occurred less frequently in the combination therapy group (VHR, 4.6% vs 7.7%; P = .02; non-VHR, 5.0% vs 8.7%; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Results suggest that the outcomes of ezetimibe combination observed in the RACING trial were consistent among patients at VHR of ASCVD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03044665.