Very early vs delayed invasive strategy in high-risk NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability: Insight from the KAMIR-NIH.

BACKGROUND: High-risk non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients' optimal timing for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is debated despite the recommendation for early invasive revascularization. This study aimed to compare outcomes of NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability undergoing very early invasive strategy (VEIS, ≤ 12 hours) versus delayed invasive strategy (DIS, >12 hours). METHODS: Excluding urgent indications for PCI including initial systolic blood pressure under 90 mmHg, ventricular arrhythmia, or Killip class IV, 4,733 NSTEMI patients were recruited from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health (KAMIR-NIH). Patients were divided into low and high- global registry of acute coronary events risk score risk score (GRS) groups based on 140. Both groups were then categorized into VEIS and DIS. Clinical outcomes, including all-cause death (ACD), cardiac death (CD), recurrent MI, and cerebrovascular accident at 12 months, were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 4,733 NSTEMI patients, 62% had low GRS, and 38% had high GRS. The proportions of VEIS and DIS were 43% vs. 57% in the low GRS group and 47% vs. 53% in the high GRS group. In the low GRS group, VEIS and DIS demonstrated similar outcomes; however, in the high GRS group, VEIS exhibited worse ACD outcomes compared to DIS (HR = 1.46, P = 0.003). The adverse effect of VEIS was consistent with propensity score matched analysis (HR = 1.34, P = 0.042). CONCLUSION: VEIS yielded worse outcomes than DIS in high-risk NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability in real-world practice.

Long-term clinical outcomes of image-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.

Imaging modalities for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT), have increased in the current PCI era. However, their clinical benefits in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have not been fully elucidated. This study investigated the long-term outcomes of image-guided PCI in patients with AMI using data from the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. A total of 9,271 patients with AMI, who underwent PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents between November 2011 and December 2015, were retrospectively examined, and target lesion failure (TLF) at 3 years (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) was evaluated. From the registry, 2,134 patients (23.0%) underwent image-guided PCI (IVUS-guided: n = 1,919 [20.6%]; OCT-guided: n = 215 patients [2.3%]). Based on propensity score matching, image-guided PCI was associated with a significant reduction in TLF (hazard ratio: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.98, p = 0.035). In addition, the TLF incidence in the OCT-guided PCI group was comparable to that in the IVUS-guided PCI group (5.3% vs 4.7%, p = 0.903). Image-guided PCI, including IVUS and OCT, is associated with favorable clinical outcomes in patients with AMI at 3 years post-intervention. Additionally, OCT-guided PCI is not inferior to IVUS-guided PCI in patients with AMI.

Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There are no clinical data on the efficacy of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock. The current study sought to evaluate the impact of intravascular imaging-guided PCI in patients with AMI and cardiogenic shock. METHODS: Among a total of 28 732 patients from the nationwide pooled registry of KAMIR-NIH (November, 2011 to December, 2015) and KAMIR-V (January, 2016 to June, 2020), we selected a total of 1833 patients (6.4%) with AMI and cardiogenic shock who underwent PCI of the culprit vessel. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and definite or probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Among the study population, 375 patients (20.5%) underwent intravascular imaging-guided PCI and 1458 patients (79.5%) underwent angiography-guided PCI. Intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with a significantly lower risk of 1-year MACE than angiography-guided PCI (19.5% vs 28.2%; HR, 0.59; 95%CI, 0.45-0.77; P<.001), mainly driven by a lower risk of cardiac death (13.7% vs 24.0%; adjusted HR, 0.53; 95%CI, 0.39-0.72; P<.001). These results were consistent in propensity score matching (HR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46-0.99), inverse probability weighting (HR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.45-0.83), and Bayesian analysis (Odds ratio, 0.66, 95% credible interval, 0.49-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In AMI patients with cardiogenic shock, intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with a lower risk of MACE at 1-year than angiography-guided PCI, mainly driven by the lower risk of cardiac death.

Prediction of longitudinal clinical outcomes after acute myocardial infarction using a dynamic machine learning algorithm.

Several regression-based models for predicting outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have been developed. However, prediction models that encompass diverse patient-related factors over time are limited. This study aimed to develop a machine learning-based model to predict longitudinal outcomes after AMI. This study was based on a nationwide prospective registry of AMI in Korea (n = 13,104). Seventy-seven predictor candidates from prehospitalization to 1 year of follow-up were included, and six machine learning approaches were analyzed. Primary outcome was defined as 1-year all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included all-cause deaths, cardiovascular deaths, and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) at the 1-year and 3-year follow-ups. Random forest resulted best performance in predicting the primary outcome, exhibiting a 99.6% accuracy along with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.874. Top 10 predictors for the primary outcome included peak troponin-I (variable importance value = 0.048), in-hospital duration (0.047), total cholesterol (0.047), maintenance of antiplatelet at 1 year (0.045), coronary lesion classification (0.043), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels (0.039), body mass index (BMI) (0.037), door-to-balloon time (0.035), vascular approach (0.033), and use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (0.032). Notably, BMI was identified as one of the most important predictors of major outcomes after AMI. BMI revealed distinct effects on each outcome, highlighting a U-shaped influence on 1-year and 3-year MACE and 3-year all-cause death. Diverse time-dependent variables from prehospitalization to the postdischarge period influenced the major outcomes after AMI. Understanding the complexity and dynamic associations of risk factors may facilitate clinical interventions in patients with AMI.

Prognostic Implications of N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding the prognostic implications of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods and Results: Of 13,104 patients in the nationwide Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health, 3,083 patients with NSTEMI who underwent PCI were included in the present study. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 3 years, a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned repeat revascularization, and admission for heart failure. NT-proBNP was measured at the time of initial presentation for the management of NSTEMI, and patients were divided into a low (<700 pg/mL; n=1,813) and high (≥700 pg/mL; n=1,270) NT-proBNP group. The high NT-proBNP group had a significantly higher risk of MACE, driven primarily by a higher risk of cardiac death or admission for heart failure. These results were consistent after confounder adjustment by propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NSTEMI who underwent PCI, an initial elevated NT-proBNP concentration was associated with higher risk of MACE at 3 years, driven primarily by higher risks of cardiac death or admission for heart failure. These results suggest that the initial NT-proBNP concentration may have a clinically significant prognostic value in NSTEMI patients undergoing PCI.

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.

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).

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).

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.

Practical Application of Coronary Physiologic Assessment: Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Document: Part 1.

Coronary physiologic assessment is performed to measure coronary pressure, flow, and resistance or their surrogates to enable the selection of appropriate management strategy and its optimization for patients with coronary artery disease. The value of physiologic assessment is supported by a large body of evidence that has led to major recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. This expert consensus document aims to convey practical and balanced recommendations and future perspectives for coronary physiologic assessment for physicians and patients in the Asia-Pacific region based on updated information in the field that including both wire- and image-based physiologic assessment. This is Part 1 of the whole consensus document, which describes the general concept of coronary physiology, as well as practical information on the clinical application of physiologic indices and novel image-based physiologic assessment.

Practical Application of Coronary Physiologic Assessment: Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Document: Part 2.

Coronary physiologic assessment is performed to measure coronary pressure, flow, and resistance or their surrogates to enable the selection of appropriate management strategy and its optimization for patients with coronary artery disease. The value of physiologic assessment is supported by a large body of clinical data that has led to major recommendations in all practice guidelines. This expert consensus document aims to convey practical and balanced recommendations and future perspectives for coronary physiologic assessment for physicians and patients in the Asia-Pacific region, based on updated information in the field that includes both wire- and image-based physiologic assessment. This is Part 2 of the whole consensus document, which provides theoretical and practical information on physiologic indexes for specific clinical conditions and patient statuses.

Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe vs high-intensity statin according to baseline LDL-C in the treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A post-hoc analysis of the RACING randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Whether the effect of a combination strategy rather than increasing doses of one drug to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels is consistent across baseline LDL-C levels remains uncertain. METHODS: In the RACING trial, which showed a non-inferiority of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (rosuvastatin 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) to high-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg) for the primary outcome (3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular event, or stroke), the heterogeneity in treatment effect according to baseline LDL-C levels was assessed for the primary and secondary outcomes (clinical efficacy and safety). RESULTS: Of 3780 participants, 2817 participants (74.5%) had LDL-C <100 mg/dL, and 963 participants (25.5%) had LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL. The treatment effect of combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy was similar among the lower LDL-C subset (8.8% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.08, p = 0.19) and the higher LDL-C subset (10.8% vs. 9.6 %; HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.7, p = 0.53) without a significant interaction (interaction p = 0.22). Of the secondary outcomes, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year achievement of LDL-C <70 mg/dL was greater in the combination therapy group regardless of baseline LDL-C levels. CONCLUSIONS: Among ASCVD patients, there was no heterogeneity in the effect of moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy in the higher and lower baseline LDL-C levels for the 3-year composite of cardiovascular outcomes.

Comparison of Antiplatelet Monotherapies After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention According to Clinical, Ischemic, and Bleeding Risks.

BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel was superior to aspirin monotherapy in secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefits of clopidogrel across high-risk subgroups METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of coronary artery diseases-EXtended Antiplatelet Monotherapy) trial that randomly assigned patients who were event free for 6 to 18 months post-PCI on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to clopidogrel or aspirin monotherapy. Two clinical risk scores were used for risk stratification: the DAPT score and the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS 2°P) (the sum of age ≥75 years, diabetes, hypertension, current smoking, peripheral artery disease, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, heart failure, and renal dysfunction). The primary composite endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission because of acute coronary syndrome, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥3) at 2 years after randomization. RESULTS: Among 5,403 patients, clopidogrel monotherapy showed a lower rate of the primary composite endpoint than aspirin monotherapy (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.90). The benefit of clopidogrel over aspirin was consistent regardless of TRS 2°P (high TRS 2°P [≥3] group: HR: 0.65 [95% CI: 0.44-0.96]; and low TRS 2°P [<3] group: HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.60-0.99]) (P for interaction = 0.454) and regardless of DAPT score (high DAPT score [≥2] group: HR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.46-1.00]; and low DAPT score [<2] group: HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.59-0.96]) (P for interaction = 0.662). The association was similar for the individual outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effect of clopidogrel over aspirin monotherapy was consistent regardless of clinical risk or relative ischemic and bleeding risks compared with aspirin monotherapy. (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis- EXtended Antiplatelet Monotherapy [HOST-EXAM]; NCT02044250).

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 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.

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.

Comparison of Outcomes Between 1- and 2-Stent Techniques for Medina Classification 0.0.1 Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Although Medina 0.0.1 bifurcation lesions are often treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in real-world practice, the optimal revascularization strategy for this lesion is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between 1- and 2-stent strategies in patients treated with PCI for Medina 0.0.1 bifurcation lesions. METHODS: The extended BIFURCAT (Combined Insights From the Unified RAIN [Very Thin Stents for Patients with Left Main or Bifurcation in Real Life] and COBIS [Coronary Bifurcation Stenting] Bifurcation Registries) registry was obtained by patient-level merging the dedicated bifurcation COBIS II, III, and RAIN registries. Among 8,434 patients with bifurcation lesions undergoing PCI, 345 (4.1%) with Medina 0.0.1 lesions were selected for the current analysis. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac event (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis) at 800 days. RESULTS: In the total population, 209 patients (60.6%) received PCI with a 1-stent strategy and the remaining 136 patients (39.4%) with a 2-stent strategy. There was a tendency for higher use of a 1-stent strategy over time (36.0%, 47.4%, and 90.4% in 2003-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2017, respectively; P for trend < 0.001). For the treatment of Medina 0.0.1 lesions, there was no significant difference in the risk of MACE between 1- and 2-stent strategies (1 stent vs 2 stent, 14.3% vs 13.9%; HR: 1.034; 95% CI: 0.541-1.977; P = 0.92). The risk of MACE was also not significantly different when stratifying into 3 groups (1-stent crossover only, 1-stent with strut opening, and 2-stent strategy). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a Medina 0.0.1 type bifurcation lesion, PCI with a 1-stent strategy showed comparable outcomes to that of a 2-stent strategy. (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting II [COBIS II]; NCT01642992; Coronary Bifurcation Stenting III [COBIS III]; NCT03068494; Very Thin Stents for Patients with Left Main or Bifurcation in Real Life [RAIN]; NCT03544294).