Clinical impact of dyspnoea after ticagrelor treatment and the effect of switching to clopidogrel in patients with myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Dyspnoea is frequent during ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, its clinical characteristics or management strategy remains uncertain. METHODS: The study assessed 2,617 AMI patients from the Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Stabilized Patients with AMI (TALOS-AMI) trial. Dyspnoea during 1-month ticagrelor-based DAPT and following DAPT strategies with continued ticagrelor or de-escalation to clopidogrel from 1 to 12 months were evaluated for drug adherence, subsequent dyspnoea, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and bleeding events. RESULTS: Dyspnoea was reported by 538 patients (20.6%) during 1 month of ticagrelor-based DAPT. Adherence to allocated DAPT over the study period was lower in the continued ticagrelor arm than the de-escalation to clopidogrel, particularly among the dyspnoeic population (81.1% vs. 91.5%, p<0.001). Among ticagrelor-treated patients with dyspnoea, those switched to clopidogrel at 1 month had a lower frequency of dyspnoea at 3 months (34.3 vs. 51.7%, p<0.001) and 6 months (25.5% vs. 38.4%, p=0.002) than those continued with ticagrelor. In patients with dyspnoea in their 1-month ticagrelor-based DAPT, de-escalation was not associated with increased MACE (1.3% vs. 3.9%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.08-1.11, p=0.07) or clinically relevant bleeding (3.2% vs. 6.2%, HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22-1.19, p=0.12) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Dyspnoea is a common side effect among ticagrelor-based DAPT in AMI patients. Switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel after 1 month in AMI patients may provide a reasonable option to alleviate subsequent dyspnoea in ticagrelor-relevant dyspnoeic patients, without increasing the risk of ischaemic events (NCT02018055).

Sex-based outcomes on unguided de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in stabilized patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a post-hoc analysis of the TALOS-AMI.

Background: The TALOS-AMI study highlighted the effectiveness of a de-escalation strategy shifting from ticagrelor to clopidogrel 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), resulting in significant reduction in clinical events, primarily attributed to a substantial decrease in bleeding events. Nevertheless, the impact of this strategy on outcomes based on sex remains unclear. Methods: This was a post-hoc analysis of the TALOS-AMI study. At 1 month after PCI, patients who remained adherent to aspirin and ticagrelor without experiencing major adverse events were randomized into either the de-escalation group (clopidogrel plus aspirin) or the active control group (ticagrelor plus aspirin) for an additional 12 months. The primary endpoint encompassed a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding type 2 or greater at 12 months after randomization. Results: Among the 2,697 patients included in this study, 454 (16.8%) were women. Women, characterized by older age and a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, impaired renal function, and non-ST-segment myocardial infarction, exhibited a lower primary endpoint at 12 months compared to men [adjusted hazards ratio (HR), 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37-0.95; P = 0.03]. Compare to the active control group, the de-escalation group demonstrated a reduced risk of the primary endpoint in both women (adjusted HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.95; P = 0.039) and men (adjusted HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P = 0.001) (interaction P = 0.46). Conclusions: In stabilized patients post-PCI with drug-eluting stents for acute myocardial infarction, the primary endpoint was lower among women compared to men. In this cohort, the benefits of an unguided de-escalation strategy from ticagrelor to clopidogrel were comparable in women and men.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Optimization of Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention by Sex: A Subgroup Analysis of the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI Trial.

Importance: There have been heterogeneous results related to sex differences in prognosis after percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI) for complex coronary artery lesions. Objective: To evaluate potential differences in outcomes with intravascular imaging-guided PCI of complex coronary artery lesions between women and men. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified substudy evaluates the interaction of sex in the investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI randomized clinical trial, which demonstrated the superiority of intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. The trial was conducted at 20 sites in Korea. Patients with complex coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI were enrolled between May 2018 and May 2021, and the median (IQR) follow-up period was 2.1 (1.4-3.0) years. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to December 2023. Interventions: After diagnostic coronary angiography, eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The choice and timing of the intravascular imaging device were left to the operators' discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included individual components of the primary end point. Results: Of 1639 included patients, 339 (20.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (10.2) years. There was no difference in the risk of the primary end point between women and men (9.4% vs 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.89-2.18; P = .15). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI tended to have lower incidence of the primary end point than angiography-guided PCI in both women (5.2% vs 14.5%; adjusted HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.78; P = .01) and men (8.3% vs 11.7%; adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.05; P = .09) without significant interaction (P for interaction = .86). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients undergoing complex PCI, compared with angiographic guidance, intravascular imaging guidance was associated with similar reduction in the risk of target vessel failure among women and men. The treatment benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed no significant interaction between treatment strategy and sex. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

Timing of fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: Rationale and design of the OPTION-STEMI trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend complete revascularization (CR) in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). With regard to the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), recent randomized clinical trials have revealed that immediate CR was non-inferior to staged CR. However, the optimal timing of CR remains uncertain. The OPTION-STEMI trial compared immediate CR and in-hospital staged CR guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) for intermediate stenosis of the non-IRA. METHODS: The OPTION-STEMI is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. The study included patients with at least one non-IRA lesion with ≥50% stenosis by visual estimation. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomized into two groups at a 1:1 ratio: immediate CR (i.e., PCI for the non-IRA performed during primary angioplasty) or in-hospital staged CR. In the in-hospital staged CR group, PCI for non-IRA lesions was performed on another day during the index hospitalization. Non-IRA lesions with 50-69% stenosis by visual estimation were evaluated by FFR, whereas those with ≥70% stenosis were revascularized without FFR. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and all unplanned revascularization at 1 year after randomization. Enrolment began in December 2019 and was completed in January 2024. The follow-up for the primary endpoint will be completed in January 2025, and primary results will be available in the middle of 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The OPTION-STEMI is a multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized trial that evaluated the timing of in-hospital CR with the aid of FFR in patients with STEMI and MVD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT04626882; and URL: https://cris.nih.go.kr. Unique identifier: KCT0004457.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Complex PCI: Prespecified Analysis of RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical benefits of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with complex coronary artery lesions have been observed in previous trials, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is uncertain. METHODS: RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance vs Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was conducted in Korea between May 2018 and May 2021. This prespecified cost-effectiveness substudy was conducted using Markov model that simulated 3 states: (1) post-PCI, (2) spontaneous myocardial infarction, and (3) death. A simulated cohort was derived from the intention-to-treat population, and input parameters were extracted from either the trial data or previous publications. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using time horizon of 3 years (within trial) and lifetime. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), an indicator of incremental cost on additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, in intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. The current analysis was performed using the Korean health care sector perspective with reporting the results in US dollar (1200 Korean Won, ₩=1 dollar, $). Willingness to pay threshold was $35 000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: A total of 1639 patients were included in the trial. During 3-year follow-up, medical costs ($8661 versus $7236; incremental cost, $1426) and QALY (2.34 versus 2.31; incremental QALY, 0.025) were both higher in intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI, resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 040 per QALY gained within trial data. Conversely, lifetime simulation showed total cumulative medical cost was reversed between the 2 groups ($40 455 versus $49 519; incremental cost, -$9063) with consistently higher QALY (8.24 versus 7.89; incremental QALY, 0.910) in intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Consistently, 70% of probabilistic iterations showed cost-effectiveness of intravascular imaging-guided PCI in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The current cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that imaging-guided PCI is more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI by reducing medical cost and increasing quality-of-life in complex coronary artery lesions in long-term follow-up. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Effect of Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients with Acute Kidney Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Renin-angiotensin system blockers (RASBs) are known to improve mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, there remain uncertainties regarding treatment with RASBs after AMI in patients with renal dysfunction and especially in the setting of acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS: Patients from a multicenter AMI registry undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea were stratified and analyzed according to the presence of AKI, defined as an increase in serum creatinine levels of ≥0.3 mg/dL or ≥50% increase from baseline during admission, and RASB prescription at discharge. The primary outcome of interest was 5-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In total 9,629 patients were selected for initial analysis, of which 2,405 had an episode of AKI. After adjustment using multivariable Cox regression, treatment with RASBs at discharge was associated with decreased all-cause mortality in the entire cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 0.849, confidence interval [CI] 0.753-0.956), but not for the patients with AKI (HR 0.988, CI 0.808-1.208). In subgroup analysis, RASBs reduced all-cause mortality in patients with stage I AKI (HR 0.760, CI 0.584-0.989) but not for stage II and III AKI (HR 1.200, CI 0.899-1.601, interaction p value 0.002). Similar heterogeneities between RASB use and AKI severity were also observed for other clinical outcomes of interest. CONCLUSION: Treatment with RASBs in patients with AMI and concomitant AKI is associated with favorable outcomes in non-severe AKI, but not in severe AKI. Further studies to confirm these results and to develop strategies to minimize the occurrence of adverse effects arising from RASB treatment are needed.

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

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

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Before and After Standardized Optimization Protocols.

BACKGROUND: Although benefits of intravascular imaging (IVI) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been observed in previous studies, it is not known whether changes in contemporary practice, especially with application of standardized optimization protocols, have improved clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate whether clinical outcomes of IVI-guided PCI are different before and after the application of standardized optimization protocols in using IVI. METHODS: 2,972 patients from an institutional registry (2008-2015, before application of standardized optimization protocols, the past group) and 1,639 patients from a recently published trial (2018-2021 after application of standardized optimization protocols, the present group) were divided into 2 groups according to use of IVI. The primary outcome was 3-year target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Significant reduction of TVF was observed in the IVI-guided PCI group compared with the angiography-guided PCI group (10.0% vs 6.7%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.97; P = 0.027), mainly driven by reduced cardiac death or myocardial infarction in both past and present IVI-guided PCI groups. When comparing past IVI and present IVI groups, TVF was significantly lower in the present IVI group (8.5% vs 5.1%; HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.42-0.94; P = 0.025), with the difference being driven by reduced target vessel revascularization in the present IVI group. Consistent results were observed in inverse-probability-weighting adjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: IVI-guided PCI improved clinical outcomes more than angiography-guided PCI. In addition, application of standardized optimization protocols when using IVI further improved clinical outcomes after PCI. (Intravascular Imaging- Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For Complex Coronary Artery Disease [RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI]; NCT03381872; and the institutional cardiovascular catheterization database of Samsung Medical Center: Long-Term Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Patient Undergoing CABG or PCI; NCT03870815).

Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Treatment for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Prespecified Analysis of the FRAME-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Complete revascularization by non-infarct-related artery (IRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction is standard practice to improve patient prognosis. However, it is unclear whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided or angiography-guided treatment strategy for non-IRA PCI would be more cost-effective. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis of the FRAME-AMI randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated to either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions between August 19, 2016, and December 24, 2020. Patients were aged 19 years or older, had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI and underwent successful primary or urgent PCI, and had at least 1 non-IRA lesion (diameter stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery or major side branch with a vessel diameter of ≥2.0 mm). Data analysis was performed on August 27, 2023. Intervention: Fractional flow reserve-guided vs angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The model simulated death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 4.5% per year. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of FFR-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. State-transition Markov models were applied to the Korean, US, and European health care systems using medical cost (presented in US dollars), utilities data, and transition probabilities from meta-analysis of previous trials. Results: The FRAME-AMI trial randomized 562 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (11.4) years. Most patients were men (474 [84.3%]). Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI increased QALYs by 0.06 compared with angiography-guided PCI. The total cumulative cost per patient was estimated as $1208 less for FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI. The ICER was -$19 484 and the INB was $3378, indicating that FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results and the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness in FFR-guided PCI was 97%. When transition probabilities from the pairwise meta-analysis of the FLOWER-MI and FRAME-AMI trials were used, FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI in the Korean, US, and European health care systems, with an INB of $3910, $8557, and $2210, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness with FFR-guided PCI was 85%, 82%, and 31% for the Korean, US, and European health care systems, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that FFR-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions saved medical costs and increased quality of life better than angiography-guided PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI should be considered in determining the treatment strategy for non-IRA stenoses in these patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02715518.

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

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

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy De-Escalation in Stabilized Myocardial Infarction With High Ischemic Risk: Post Hoc Analysis of the TALOS-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who have high ischemic risk, data on the efficacy and safety of the de-escalation strategy of switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel are lacking. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of the de-escalation strategy compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor in stabilized patients with AMI and high ischemic risk following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc analysis of the Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel in Stabilized Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction (TALOS-AMI) trial, an open-label, assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Patients with AMI who had no event during 1 month of ticagrelor-based DAPT after PCI were included. High ischemic risk was defined as having a history of diabetes or chronic kidney disease, multivessel PCI, at least 3 lesions treated, total stent length greater than 60 mm, at least 3 stents implanted, left main PCI, or bifurcation PCI with at least 2 stents. Data were collected from February 14, 2014, to January 21, 2021, and analyzed from December 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to either de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel or ticagrelor-based DAPT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ischemic outcomes (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis) and bleeding outcomes (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding) were evaluated. Results: Of 2697 patients with AMI (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [11.4] years; 454 [16.8%] female), 1371 (50.8%; 684 assigned to de-escalation and 687 assigned to ticagrelor-based DAPT) had high ischemic risk features and a significantly higher risk of ischemic outcomes than those without high ischemic risk (1326 patients [49.2%], including 665 assigned to de-escalation and 661 assigned to ticagrelor-based DAPT) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.74; 95% CI, 1.15-2.63; P = .01). De-escalation to clopidogrel, compared with ticagrelor-based DAPT, showed no significant difference in ischemic risk across the high ischemic risk group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.54-1.45; P = .62) and the non-high ischemic risk group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.33-1.28; P = .21), without heterogeneity (P for interaction = .47). The bleeding risk of the de-escalation group was consistent in both the high ischemic risk group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.11; P = .11) and the non-high ischemic risk group (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.75; P = .003), without heterogeneity (P for interaction = .32). Conclusions and Relevance: In stabilized patients with AMI, the ischemic and bleeding outcomes of an unguided de-escalation strategy with clopidogrel compared with a ticagrelor-based DAPT strategy were consistent without significant interaction, regardless of the presence of high ischemic risk.

Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expandable Valve in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Nation-Wide Study.

A few studies have reported comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between balloon-expandable valve (BEV) and self-expandable valve (SEV) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis using newer-generation devices. However, those reports were mostly limited to short-term outcomes and Western populations. In the present study, data of patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR between March 2016 and December 2018 were obtained from the National Health Insurance Service in Korea. The primary end point, defined as all-cause mortality, was compared in BEV (SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) and SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) groups using a propensity-score matching analysis. Cumulative event rates of ischemic stroke, repeat procedures, and permanent pacemaker insertion (PPI) were evaluated as secondary outcomes. All events were followed up to a maximum of 3 years. A total of 1,172 patients underwent transfemoral TAVR, of whom 707 (60.3%) were treated with BEV and 452 (38.6%) with SEV. After 1:1 propensity-score matching, the BEV group showed lower all-cause mortality after a median follow-up of 12.0 months (mean: 13.1 ± 9.3 months) based on Cox proportional hazard model analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.99, p = 0.04). Cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke was not statistically different between the 2 groups (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.59, p = 0.37). PPI occurred less frequently in the BEV group (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, p < 0.01). Repeat procedures were rare (1 patient in BEV and 2 patients in SEV group). In conclusion, Korean nation-wide data analysis showed that BEV was associated with less all-cause death and incidence of PPI after TAVR than was SEV using a newer-generation device.

Clinical Benefit of Intravascular Imaging Compared With Conventional Angiography in Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) demonstrated that intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved clinical outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for patients with complex coronary artery lesions. This study aims to assess whether the prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging-guided procedural optimization persists in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: Of 1639 patients enrolled in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 192 patients with left main coronary artery disease were selected for the current prespecified substudy. Selected patients were randomly assigned to either the intravascular imaging-guided PCI group (n=138) or the angiography-guided PCI group (n=54). The primary end point was target vessel failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range 1.1 to 3.0 years), intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with lower incidence of primary end point compared with angiography-guided PCI (6.8% versus 25.1%; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.76]; P=0.010). This significant reduction in primary end point was mainly driven by a lower risk of cardiac death or spontaneous target vessel-related myocardial infarction (1.6% versus 12.7%; hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03-0.82]; P=0.028). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI was independently associated with a lower risk of primary end point, even after adjusting for various clinical factors (hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12-0.72]; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed clinical benefit over angiography-guided PCI for left main coronary artery disease in reducing the risk of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Intravascular Imaging in Patients With Complex Coronary Lesions and Chronic Kidney Disease.

Importance: As patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are more likely to have complex coronary lesions, intravascular imaging guidance in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this population could be potentially beneficial. Objectives: To investigate whether the outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided procedural optimization would be different according to the presence of CKD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified substudy of RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, a recently published multicenter randomized clinical trial in Korea studying the benefits of intravascular imaging for complex coronary lesions. Patients with complex coronary lesions, with or without CKD, were enrolled between May 2018 and May 2021. Data were analyzed from January to June 2023. Interventions: PCI in each group was done either under the guidance of intravascular imaging or angiography alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF) at the 3-year point, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Results: A total of 1639 patients (1300 male [79.3%]) treated with PCI for complex coronary lesions were stratified into CKD (296 participants) and non-CKD (1343 participants) groups. The mean (SD) age of each group was 70.3 (9.4) and 64.5 (10.1) years, and mean (SD) estimated serum creatinine was 2.9 (5.3) and 0.8 (0.2) mg/dL for CKD and non-CKD groups, respectively. Intravascular imaging-guided revascularization was associated with significantly lower incidence of the primary end point compared with angiography-guided revascularization in both CKD (13.3% vs 23.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.93; P = .03) and non-CKD (6.4% vs 9.9%; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99; P = .05) groups. The significantly lower incidence of the primary end point was mainly associated with the lower risk of cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction (9.4% vs 22.2%; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.76; P = .006) in the CKD group and by target vessel revascularization (3.0% vs 5.5%; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.30-0.99; P = .05) in the non-CKD group. Those with a glomerular filtration rate of at least 30 mL/min/1.73m2 and less than 60 ml/kg/1.73m2 showed the greatest benefit from imaging-guided complex PCI (8.8% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prespecified cohort substudy of the Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention trial, intravascular imaging guidance showed clinical benefit over angiography guidance in reducing the risk of TVF, regardless of the presence of CKD. The greatest benefits of imaging-guided complex PCI were observed in stage 3 CKD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

QFR Assessment and Prognosis After Nonculprit PCI in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization using either angiography-guided or fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy can improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, there is concern that angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may result in un-necessary PCI of the non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), and its long-term prognosis is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes after non-IRA PCI according to the quantitative flow ratio (QFR). METHODS: We performed post hoc QFR analysis of non-IRA lesions of AMI patients enrolled in the FRAME-AMI (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease) trial, which randomly allocated 562 patients into either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis >50%) for non-IRA lesions. Patients were classified by non-IRA QFR values into the QFR ≤0.80 and QFR >0.80 groups. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 443 patients (552 lesions) were eligible for QFR analysis. Of 209 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group, 30.0% (n = 60) underwent non-IRA PCI despite having QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. Conversely, only 2.7% (n = 4) among 209 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group had QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the rate of MACEs was significantly higher among patients with non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 than in patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 3.1%; HR: 4.13; 95% CI: 1.10-15.57; P = 0.036). Non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 was associated with a higher risk of non-IRA MACEs than patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 2.1%; HR: 5.44; 95% CI: 1.13-26.19; P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In AMI patients with multivessel disease, 30.0% of angiography-guided PCI resulted in un-necessary PCI for the non-IRA with QFR >0.80, which was significantly associated with an increased risk of MACEs than in those with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions. (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease [FRAME-AMI] ClinicalTrials.gov number; NCT02715518).

Comparative Effectiveness of Long-Term Maintenance Beta-Blocker Therapy After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Stable, Optimally Treated Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background The benefits of long-term maintenance beta-blocker (BB) therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been well established. Methods and Results Using the Korean nationwide registry, a total of 7159 patients with AMI treated with PCI who received BBs at discharge and were free from death or cardiovascular events for 3 months after PCI were included in the analysis. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to BB maintenance duration: <12 months, 12 to <24 months, 24 to <36 months, and ≥36 months. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, heart failure, or hospitalization for unstable angina. During a mean 5.0±2.8 years of follow-up, over half of patients with AMI (52.5%) continued BB therapy beyond 3 years following PCI. After propensity score matching and propensity score marginal mean weighting through stratification, a stepwise inverse correlation was noted between BB duration and risk of the primary outcome (<12 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.19 [95% CI, 1.95-2.46]; 12 to <24 months: HR, 2.10 [95% CI, 1.81-2.43];, and 24 to <36 months: HR, 1.68 [95%CI, 1.45-1.94]; reference: ≥36 months). In a 3-year landmark analysis, BB use for <36 months was associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.37-1.85]) compared with BB use for ≥36 months. Conclusions Among stabilized patients with AMI following PCI, longer maintenance BB therapy, especially for >36 months, was associated with better clinical outcomes. These findings might imply that a better prognosis can be expected if patients with AMI maintain BB therapy for ≥36 months after PCI. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02806102.

Office-Visit Heart Rate and Long-Term Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.

An elevated heart rate at admission or discharge is known to be associated with poor cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The association between post-discharge average office-visit heart rate and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with AMI has rarely been studied. We analyzed data for 7840 patients from the COREA-AMI registry who had their heart rates measured at least three times after hospital discharge. The office-visit heart rates were averaged and categorized into four groups by quartiles (<68, 68-74, 74-80, and >80 beats per minute). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. During a median of 5.7 years of follow-up, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) affected 1357 (17.3%) patients. An average heart rate higher than 80 bpm was associated with an increased incidence of MACE compared to the reference average heart rate of 68-74 bpm. When dichotomized into <74 or ≥74 bpm, a lower average heart rate was not associated with MACE in patients with LV systolic dysfunction, in contrast to those without LV systolic dysfunction. An elevated average heart rate at office visits after AMI was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Heart rate monitoring at office visits after discharge provides an important predictor related to cardiovascular events.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex PCI.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary-artery lesions, as compared with outcomes after angiography-guided PCI, are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label trial in South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with complex coronary-artery lesions in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. In the intravascular imaging group, the choice between intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography was at the operators' discretion. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1639 patients underwent randomization, with 1092 assigned to undergo intravascular imaging-guided PCI and 547 assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.4 to 3.0), a primary end-point event had occurred in 76 patients (cumulative incidence, 7.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 60 patients (cumulative incidence, 12.3%) in the angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.89; P = 0.008). Death from cardiac causes occurred in 16 patients (cumulative incidence, 1.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 17 patients (cumulative incidence, 3.8%) in the angiography group; target-vessel-related myocardial infarction occurred in 38 (cumulative incidence, 3.7%) and 30 (cumulative incidence, 5.6%), respectively; and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization in 32 (cumulative incidence, 3.4%) and 25 (cumulative incidence, 5.5%), respectively. There were no apparent between-group differences in the incidence of procedure-related safety events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with complex coronary-artery lesions, intravascular imaging-guided PCI led to a lower risk of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization than angiography-guided PCI. (Supported by Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03381872).