Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair Within and Outside the Instructions for Use in Korean Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been used worldwide to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Outcomes after EVAR within and outside the instruction for use (IFU) remain controversial. We analyzed long-term outcomes of EVAR within-the-IFU compared with that outside-the-IFU and baseline clinical/anatomical characteristics that influence outcomes of EVAR. METHODS: The study included 546 patients who underwent EVAR for infrarenal AAA from 1997 to 2021 at 2 Korean medical centers. The primary endpoint was graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including type 1 or 3 endoleak, reintervention (included open conversion), aneurysm sac enlargement, aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), rupture, stent-graft migration, and stent thrombotic occlusion. RESULTS: The patients who underwent EVAR outside the IFU were 287 (52.6%). A neck angle of >60° was most common outside the IFU criteria (n=146, 50.9%). This study revealed that patients outside the IFU had a higher rate of GRAEs compared with patients within the IFU (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.879; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.045-2.386). A neck angle of >60° was a significant risk factor for GRAEs (adjusted HR: 2.229; 95% CI: 1.418-3.503), type 1 or 3 endoleak (adjusted HR: 2.640; 95% CI: 1.343-5.189), and reintervention (adjusted HR: 1.891; 95% CI: 1.055-3.388). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed EVAR with outside the IFU was associated with increased GRAEs, mainly attributed to endoleak and ARM, compared with EVAR with within the IFU. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak, and reintervention. CLINICAL IMPACT: Our study revealed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with outside-the-instruction for use (IFU) was associated with increased graft-related adverse events (GRAEs) compared with EVAR with within-the-IFU. In the low-risk population, the incidence of GRAEs and Aneurysm related mortality were higher in the outside-the-IFU group rather than within-the-IFU group. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak and reintervention.

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.

Hemo-metabolic impairment in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Data from the INTERSTELLAR registry.

BACKGROUND: Not only hemo-dynamic (HD) factors but also hemo-metabolic (HM) risk factors reflecting multi-organ injuries are considered as important prognostic factors in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, studies regarding HM risk factors in STEMI patients are currently limited. METHOD: Under analysis were 1,524 patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the INTERSTELLAR registry. Patients were divided into HM (≥ 2 risk factors) and non-HM impairment groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 1,524 patients, 214 (14.0%) and 1,310 (86.0%) patients were in the HM and non-HM impairment groups, respectively. Patients with HM impairment had a higher incidence of in-hospital mortality than those without (24.3% vs. 2.7%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, HM impairment was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (inverse probability of treatment weighting [IPTW]-adjusted odds ratio: 1.81, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-3.14). In the third door-to-balloon (DTB) time tertile (≥ 82 min), HM impairment was strongly associated with in-hospital mortality. In the first DTB time tertile ( < 62 min), indicating relatively rapid revascularization, HM impairment was consistently associated with increased in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hemo-metabolic impairment is significantly associated with increased risk of in-hospital and 1-year mortality in patients with STEMI. It remains a significant prognostic factor, regardless of DTB time.

Improved intra-atrial conduction delay after successful ablation for atrial fibrillation by scar homogenization in right atrium.

Atrial fibrosis in the right atrium (RA) presenting as a low-voltage zone might be the mechanism of atrial fibrillation (AF) and intra-atrial conduction delay. The impact of scar homogenization in RA on intra-atrial conduction delay is unknown. We describe a patient with paroxysmal AF and significant intra-atrial conduction delay with repetitive atrial flutter, triggered from the lateral free wall in the RA between the significant low-voltage zone and slow conduction area after pulmonary vein isolation. Linear ablation along the trabeculated lateral free wall in the RA to homogenize the scar was successfully performed, and the intra-atrial conduction delay improved ultimately.

Long-term clinical outcomes for patients with uncrossable patent foramen ovale.

Introduction: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is performed in selected patients with cryptogenic stroke to prevent recurrence. The prognosis of patients with uncrossable PFO after failed guidewire or catheter passage during the procedure remains unknown. We compared the long-term prognosis between uncrossable PFO and successful PFO closure in patients with high-grade PFO shunts. Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent PFO closure for stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) prevention at Gachon University Gil Medical Center between April 2010 and March 2022. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent stroke or TIA. Secondary outcomes included stroke, TIA, all-cause death, and a composite of stroke, TIA, and all-cause death. Results: Of 286 patients, 245 were included in the analysis after excluding those with transseptal puncture technique usage or concurrent atrial septal defect. Among them, 82 had uncrossable PFO, and 163 underwent successful PFO closure. Large shunts were more prevalent in the PFO closure group compared to the uncrossable PFO group (62.0% vs. 34.1%, P < 0.001), and resting shunts were also more common in the PFO closure group (17.8% vs. 2.4%, P < 0.001). Stroke or TIA occurred in 2 patients (2.4%) in the uncrossable PFO group and 8 patients (4.9%) in the PFO closure group (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-6.81; P = 0.647). Additionally, no disparities in the occurrence of stroke or TIA were found in subgroups divided by baseline characteristics, RoPE score, or shunt grade. Conclusion: Clinical outcomes for patients with uncrossable PFO seem similar to those with successful PFO closure.

Rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin treatment in adults with coronary artery disease: secondary analysis of the randomised LODESTAR trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long term efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin with atorvastatin treatment in adults with coronary artery disease. DESIGN: Randomised, open label, multicentre trial. SETTING: 12 hospitals in South Korea, September 2016 to November 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 4400 adults (age ≥19 years) with coronary artery disease. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were assigned to receive either rosuvastatin (n=2204) or atorvastatin (n=2196) using 2×2 factorial randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a three year composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any coronary revascularisation. Secondary outcomes were safety endpoints: new onset diabetes mellitus; hospital admissions due to heart failure; deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary thromboembolism; endovascular revascularisation for peripheral artery disease; aortic intervention or surgery; end stage kidney disease; discontinuation of study drugs owing to intolerance; cataract surgery; and a composite of laboratory detected abnormalities. RESULTS: 4341 of the 4400 participants (98.7%) completed the trial. Mean daily dose of study drugs was 17.1 mg (standard deviation (SD) 5.2 mg) in the rosuvastatin group and 36.0 (12.8) mg in the atorvastatin group at three years (P<0.001). The primary outcome occurred in 189 participants (8.7%) in the rosuvastatin group and 178 (8.2%) in the atorvastatin group (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.58). The mean low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level during treatment was 1.8 mmol/L (SD 0.5 mmol/L) in the rosuvastatin group and 1.9 (0.5) mmol/L in the atorvastatin group (P<0.001). The rosuvastatin group had a higher incidence of new onset diabetes mellitus requiring initiation of antidiabetics (7.2% v 5.3%; hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.87; P=0.03) and cataract surgery (2.5% v 1.5%; 1.66, 1.07 to 2.58; P=0.02). Other safety endpoints did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with coronary artery disease, rosuvastatin and atorvastatin showed comparable efficacy for the composite outcome of all cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any coronary revascularisation at three years. Rosuvastatin was associated with lower LDL cholesterol levels but a higher risk of new onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery compared with atorvastatin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02579499.

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).

Treat-to-target versus high-intensity statin treatment in patients with or without diabetes mellitus: a pre-specified analysis from the LODESTAR trial.

Background: The impact of titrated versus fixed intensity statin therapy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) remains to be elucidated. Methods: This was a pre-specified analysis of patients with and without DM from the LODESTAR trial. Patients with CAD were randomly assigned to receive either a treat-to-target strategy with a target LDL-C level of 50-70 mg/dL or a high-intensity statin treatment. Primary outcome was the 3-year composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes were safety endpoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02579499. Findings: Between September 9, 2016 and November 27, 2019, 4400 patients with CAD were enrolled in the LODESTAR trial. The median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 59-73 years), 3172 (72%) were male, and 1468 (33%) had DM at baseline. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome between the treat-to-target group and high-intensity statin group among patients with DM (10.5% versus 11.1%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.29, p = 0.70) and those without DM (6.9% versus 7.5%, HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71-1.21, p = 0.58). Among patients without DM, there was a trend towards a lower risk of new-onset DM in the treat-to-target group (8.4% versus 10.4% in the high-intensity statin group, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.01; p = 0.06). Interpretation: In patients with CAD, a treat-to-target LDL-C strategy of 50-70 mg/dL as the goal was comparable to high-intensity statin therapy in terms of 3-year clinical efficacy and safety outcomes regardless of the presence of DM. Funding: Sam Jin Pharmaceutical, Seoul, Korea and Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical, Seoul, Korea.

Safety and Efficacy of Post-Dilation in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Polymer-Free Ultrathin Strut Sirolimus-Probucol Coated Drug-Eluting Stents.

Background and Objectives: Polymer-free ultrathin strut sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (PF-SES) are recognized as safe and effective in diverse patient populations, although the implications of post-dilation during stent implantation remain underexamined. Materials and Methods: In this study, patients implanted with PF-SES at Gachon University Gil Medical Center between December 2014 and February 2018 were evaluated. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), encompassing nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death were identified as primary outcomes, with secondary outcomes including target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and in-stent restenosis (ISR). Results: Of the 384 initial patients, 299 were considered eligible for analysis. The groups, delineated by those undergoing post-dilation (143 patients) and those not (156 patients), exhibited comparable rates of primary outcomes [hazard ratio (HR), 2.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.40 to 11.87; p = 0.37]. The outcomes remained consistent irrespective of the post-dilation status and were similarly unaffected in multivariate analyses (HR, 2.90; 95% CI, 0.52 to 16.34; p = 0.227). Conclusions: These results suggest that the clinical outcomes of patients with post-dilation were similar to that of those without post-dilation in those with the polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents.

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.

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.

Comparison of 7-Year, Real-World Clinical Outcomes between Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty versus Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Patients with Drug-Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis.

There are no data available comparing the real-world, long-term clinical outcomes of drug-eluting balloon (DEB) angioplasty and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in DES in-stent restenosis (ISR) lesions. We aimed to compare the real-world, long-term data available between DEBs and DESs in DES-ISR lesions. We analyzed consecutive DES-ISR lesions (225 lesions from 205 patients; male: 66.3%; mean age: 62.4 years) treated with either DEB or DES. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR), and the primary safety endpoint was the lesion-oriented composite outcome (LOCO). The LOCO is composed of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion thrombosis during follow-up. During the 7-year follow-up period, TLR did not differ significantly between the DEB (n = 108) and the DES groups (n = 117) (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.59-1.93, p = 0.83). The LOCO was significantly lower in the DEB group compared to the DES group (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16-0.98, p = 0.04), which was mainly driven by the lower levels of myocardial infarction (HR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.06-0.94, p = 0.04) and the absence of target lesion thrombosis in the DEB group (vs. DES group 6%, p = 0.02). Additionally, cardiac death was found to be similar between the DEB and DES groups (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.18-1.75, p = 0.32). DEB angioplasty showed favorable safety with a similar efficacy to that of DES implantation in DES-ISR lesions during the long-term follow-up period.

Efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: a post-hoc analysis of the RACING trial.

Background: Moderate-intensity statin role with ezetimibe combination therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been thoroughly investigated, particularly compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy. We aimed to investigate the effect of ezetimibe combination with moderate-intensity statin in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease following PCI. Methods: This was a post-hoc analysis of a subset of patients who underwent PCI in the RACING trial. At 26 centres in South Korea, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) were randomly assigned to receive either moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy (rosuvastatin 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin 20 mg). The prespecified endpoints of the RACING trial were used. The primary endpoint was the 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, and nonfatal stroke. Event rates between the two groups were compared using log-rank tests, and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Cox regression analysis. Consistent with the RACING trial, the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using an intention-to-treatment approach, and the safety endpoints were assessed in the safety population. The RACING trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03044665). Findings: Between Feb 14, 2017, and Dec 18, 2018, 3780 participants were enrolled in the RACING trial. Prior history of PCI was found in 2497 patients (67%, median 64 years, 79% male), and was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.69; p = 0.014). Among patients with prior PCI, moderate-intensity statin therapy with ezetimibe combination versus high-intensity statin therapy did not increase the risk of the primary endpoint (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.24; p = 0.781). The proportion of patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <70 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years was 74%, 76%, and 73%, respectively, in the combination therapy group, and was significantly higher than that in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (57%, 62%, and 59%, respectively, all p < 0.001). Discontinuation of lipid-lowering drugs occurred less frequently in the combination group (4.2% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.001). Interpretation: The effects of ezetimibe combination therapy observed in the RACING trial were consistently preserved among patients with ASCVD following PCI. Ezetimibe combination could be considered as a suitable therapeutic strategy to achieve strict control of LDL-C and reduce drug intolerance in patients who underwent PCI. Funding: Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea.

Treat-to-Target or High-Intensity Statin in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients with coronary artery disease, some guidelines recommend initial statin treatment with high-intensity statins to achieve at least a 50% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). An alternative approach is to begin with moderate-intensity statins and titrate to a specific LDL-C goal. These alternatives have not been compared head-to-head in a clinical trial involving patients with known coronary artery disease. Objective: To assess whether a treat-to-target strategy is noninferior to a strategy of high-intensity statins for long-term clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, multicenter, noninferiority trial in patients with a coronary disease diagnosis treated at 12 centers in South Korea (enrollment: September 9, 2016, through November 27, 2019; final follow-up: October 26, 2022). Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either the LDL-C target strategy, with an LDL-C level between 50 and 70 mg/dL as the target, or high-intensity statin treatment, which consisted of rosuvastatin, 20 mg, or atorvastatin, 40 mg. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was a 3-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization with a noninferiority margin of 3.0 percentage points. Results: Among 4400 patients, 4341 patients (98.7%) completed the trial (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.9] years; 1228 females [27.9%]). In the treat-to-target group (n = 2200), which had 6449 person-years of follow-up, moderate-intensity and high-intensity dosing were used in 43% and 54%, respectively. The mean (SD) LDL-C level for 3 years was 69.1 (17.8) mg/dL in the treat-to-target group and 68.4 (20.1) mg/dL in the high-intensity statin group (n = 2200) (P = .21, compared with the treat-to-target group). The primary end point occurred in 177 patients (8.1%) in the treat-to-target group and 190 patients (8.7%) in the high-intensity statin group (absolute difference, -0.6 percentage points [upper boundary of the 1-sided 97.5% CI, 1.1 percentage points]; P < .001 for noninferiority). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with coronary artery disease, a treat-to-target LDL-C strategy of 50 to 70 mg/dL as the goal was noninferior to a high-intensity statin therapy for the 3-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization. These findings provide additional evidence supporting the suitability of a treat-to-target strategy that may allow a tailored approach with consideration for individual variability in drug response to statin therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02579499.

Early Invasive Strategy Based on the Time of Symptom Onset of Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: A limitation of the current guidelines regarding the timing of invasive coronary angiography for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome is the randomization time. To date, no study has reported the clinical outcomes of invasive strategy timing on the basis of the time of symptom onset. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of invasive strategy timing from the time of symptom onset on the 3-year clinical outcomes of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). METHODS: Among 13,104 patients from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health, 5,856 patients with NSTE myocardial infarction were evaluated. The patients were categorized according to symptom-to-catheter (StC) time (<48 or ≥48 hours). The primary outcome was 3-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 3,919 patients (66.9%) were classified into the StC time <48 hours group. This group had lower all-cause mortality than the group with StC time ≥48 hours (7.3% vs 13.4%; P < 0.001). The lower risk for all-cause mortality in the group with StC time <48 hours group was consistent in all subgroups. Notably, emergency medical service use (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.19-0.52) showed a lower risk for all-cause mortality than no emergency medical service use (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.46-0.65; P value for interaction = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: An early invasive strategy on the basis of StC time was associated with a decreased risk for all-cause mortality in patients with NSTEMI. Because the study was based on a prospective registry, the results should be considered hypothesis generating, highlighting the need for further research. (iCReaT Study No. C110016).

Moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe vs. high-intensity statin in patients with diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the RACING trial.

AIMS: This study evaluated the effect of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a pre-specified, stratified subgroup analysis of the DM cohort in the RACING trial. The primary outcome was a 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or non-fatal stroke. Among total patients, 1398 (37.0%) had DM at baseline. The incidence of the primary outcome was 10.0% and 11.3% among patients with DM randomized to ezetimibe combination therapy vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy (hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.22; P = 0.460). Intolerance-related discontinuation or dose reduction of the study drug was observed in 5.2% and 8.7% of patients in each group, respectively (P = 0.014). LDL cholesterol levels <70 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years were observed in 81.0%, 83.1%, and 79.9% of patients in the ezetimibe combination therapy group, and 64.1%, 70.2%, and 66.8% of patients in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (all P < 0.001). In the total population, no significant interactions were found between DM status and therapy regarding primary outcome, intolerance-related discontinuation or dose reduction, and the proportion of patients with LDL cholesterol levels <70 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: Ezetimibe combination therapy effects observed in the RACING trial population are preserved among patients with DM. This study supports moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy as a suitable alternative to high-intensity statins if the latter cannot be tolerated, or further reduction in LDL cholesterol is required among patients with DM and ASCVD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier:NCT03044665.

BioMatrix Versus Orsiro Stents for Coronary Artery Disease: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study.

BACKGROUND: Comparative studies of ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) have reported promising results and validated its excellent outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy. However, there are limited studies comparing BP drug-eluting stents with struts of different thicknesses. We compared the long-term clinical outcomes of patients treated with an ultrathin-strut BP-SES or a thick-strut biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES). METHODS: The BIODEGRADE trial (Biomatrix and Orsiro Drug-Eluting Stents in Angiographic Result in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease) is a multicenter prospective randomized study comparing coronary revascularization in patients with ultrathin-strut BP-SES and thick-strut BP-BES with the primary end point of target lesion failure at 18 months posttreatment. We performed the prespecified analysis of 3-year clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 2341 patients were randomized to receive treatment with ultrathin-strut BP-SES (N=1175) or thick-strut BP-BES (N=1166). The 3-year incidence rate of target lesion failure was 3.2% for BP-SES and 5.1% for BP-BES (P=0.023). The difference was primarily due to differences in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (BP-SES, 1.5%; BP-BES, 2.8%; P=0.035) between groups. A landmark analysis of the late follow-up period showed significant differences in target lesion failure, with outcomes being better in BP-SES. Cardiac death and target lesion revascularization were significantly lower in the BP-SES group. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, randomized trial, the long-term clinical outcome of target lesion failure at 3 years was significantly better among patients treated with the ultrathin-strut BP-SES. The results indicate the superiority of the ultrathin-strut BP-SES compared with the thick-strut BP-BES. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02299011.

Association of height loss and cardiovascular disease: Data from a large Korean cohort.

Background: Height declines with age, and its degree differs among individuals. Despite epidemiologic evidence for the inverse relationship between adult height and cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence, the clinical significance of height loss in CVD remains to be elucidated. Therefore, this study investigated the association between height loss and CVD incidence. Methods: In total, 127,573 Korean participants were enrolled; their heights were monitored from 2002 to 2011. The annual height loss (cm/year) was the difference between the first and last height measurements within the observation period divided by the number of years. The participants were classified as Group 1 (height loss: <0.3 cm/year; n = 102,554), Group 2 (height loss: 0.3- < 0.6 cm/year; n = 17,324), or Group 3 (height loss: ≥0.6 cm/year; n = 7,695). Results: The cumulative major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE: cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned hospitalization for heart failure or stroke) incidence rate was 3.6% for Group 1, 4.5% for Group 2, and 5.2% for Group 3. Group 2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-1.37) and Group 3 (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.32-1.62) had a significantly higher incidence of MACCE than Group 1. In the model adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, income level, body mass index, smoking, and drinking status, the MACCE risk was higher in Group 2 (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.07-1.20) and Group 3 (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.13-1.39) than in Group 1. Conclusion: The degree of height loss was independently associated with CVD occurrences in the Korean population.

Comparison of 2 Different Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons in Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) offer an effective treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR). The Genoss DCB is a novel paclitaxel-coated balloon with a shellac plus vitamin E excipient that enhances drug delivery to the target lesion, minimizing restenosis. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the angiographic efficacy, clinical safety, and effectiveness of the novel shellac plus vitamin E-based DCB in a randomized controlled trial designed to enable regulatory approval of this new device in South Korea. Methods: This noninferiority trial randomized patients experiencing their first ISR to the novel shellac plus vitamin E-based DCB or the reference SeQuent Please iopromide-based DCB in a 1:1 ratio. All patients underwent planned angiographic and clinical follow-up at 6 months. The study was powered for the primary endpoint of 6 months in-segment late lumen loss (LLL). Results: A total of 82 patients from 7 centers were randomized to either the novel shellac plus vitamin E-based DCB group (n = 41) or the reference iopromide-based DCB group (n = 41). The 6-month in-segment LLL was 0.15 ± 0.43 mm with the novel DCB compared with 0.24 ± 0.39 mm with the reference device. The 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was 0.13 mm, lower than the noninferiority limit of 0.29 mm, achieving noninferiority (P for noninferiority = 0.001). Major cardiovascular events were comparable between 2 groups at 6 months (7.7% for the novel DCB vs 10.3% for the reference DCB; P = 0.692). Conclusions: In this multicenter, head-to-head comparison randomized trial, the novel shellac plus vitamin E-based DCB showed a comparable result to the reference iopromide-based device for the primary endpoint of 6-month in-segment LLL for the treatment of coronary ISR. (Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Genoss® DCB and SeQuent® Please in Korean Patient With Coronary In-stent Restenosis; NCT04405063).