Sendai virus is robust and consistent in delivering genes into human pancreatic cancer cells.

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly intratumorally heterogeneous disease that includes several subtypes and is highly plastic. Effective gene delivery to all PDAC cells is essential for modulating gene expression and identifying potential gene-based therapeutic targets in PDAC. Most current gene delivery systems for pancreatic cells are optimized for islet or acinar cells. Lentiviral vectors are the current main gene delivery vectors for PDAC, but their transduction efficiencies vary depending on pancreatic cell type, and are especially poor for the classical subtype of PDAC cells from both primary tumors and cell lines. Methods: We systemically compare transduction efficiencies of glycoprotein G of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV-G)-pseudotyped lentiviral and Sendai viral vectors in human normal pancreatic ductal and PDAC cells. Results: We find that the Sendai viral vector gives the most robust gene delivery efficiency regardless of PDAC cell type. Therefore, we propose using Sendai viral vectors to transduce ectopic genes into PDAC cells.

Epigenome editing in cancer: Advances and challenges for potential therapeutic options.

Cancers are diseases caused by genetic and non-genetic environmental factors. Epigenetic alterations, some attributed to non-genetic factors, can lead to cancer development. Epigenetic changes can occur in tumor suppressors or oncogenes, or they may contribute to global cell state changes, making cells abnormal. Recent advances in gene editing technology show potential for cancer treatment. Herein, we will discuss our current knowledge of epigenetic alterations occurring in cancer and epigenetic editing technologies that can be applied to developing therapeutic options.

Optimal antithrombotic strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation: Design and rationale of the randomized ADAPT AF-DES trial.

BACKGROUND: Both anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies are recommended after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although contemporary guidelines recommend discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy 1 year after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation due to excessive bleeding risk, supporting randomized trials are still lacking. METHODS: The ADAPT AF-DES trial is a multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial, enrolling 960 patients with AF with a CHA2DS2-VASc score > 1, who underwent PCI with DES implantation at least 12 months before enrollment. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to receive either non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) monotherapy or NOAC plus clopidogrel combination therapy. The primary outcome is net adverse clinical event (NACE) at 1 year after randomization, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, systemic embolism, and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria. We hypothesize that NOAC monotherapy would be non-inferior to NOAC plus clopidogrel combination therapy for NACE in patients with AF beyond 12 months after DES implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The ADAPT AF-DES trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOAC monotherapy versus NOAC plus clopidogrel combination therapy in patients with AF beyond 12 months after PCI with DES implantation. The ADAPT AF-DES trial will provide robust evidence for an optimal antithrombotic strategy in patients with AF after DES implantation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT04250116.

Reprogramming Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma to Pluripotency.

The generation of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) using transcription factors has been achieved from almost any differentiated cell type and has proved highly valuable for research and clinical applications. Interestingly, iPSC reprogramming of cancer cells, such as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), has been shown to revert the invasive PDAC phenotype and override the cancer epigenome. The differentiation of PDAC-derived iPSCs can recapitulate PDAC progression from its early pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) precursor, revealing the molecular and cellular changes that occur early during PDAC progression. Therefore, PDAC-derived iPSCs can be used to model the earliest stages of PDAC for the discovery of early-detection diagnostic markers. This is particularly important for PDAC patients, who are typically diagnosed at the late metastatic stages due to a lack of reliable biomarkers for the earlier PanIN stages. However, reprogramming cancer cell lines, including PDAC, into pluripotency remains challenging, labor-intensive, and highly variable between different lines. Here, we describe a more consistent protocol for generating iPSCs from various human PDAC cell lines using bicistronic lentiviral vectors. The resulting iPSC lines are stable, showing no dependence on the exogenous expression of reprogramming factors or inducible drugs. Overall, this protocol facilitates the generation of a wide range of PDAC-derived iPSCs, which is essential for discovering early biomarkers that are more specific and representative of PDAC cases.

Comparative effectiveness of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a nationwide cohort study.

The long-term outcome of first-line moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy remains elusive. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe combination therapy with high-intensity statin monotherapy. We conducted a nationwide, population-based, retrospective, cohort study of patients with ACS from 2013 to 2019. The patients using combination therapy were matched (1:1) to those using monotherapy. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke and all-cause mortality. We estimated the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Cox proportional hazards regression. After propensity score matching, 10,723 pairs were selected. Men accounted for 70% of the patients and 37% aged > 70 years. The primary endpoint occurred in 1297 patients (12.1%) in the combination group and in 1426 patients (13.3%) in the monotherapy group, and decreased risk (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.92, P < 0.001) in the combination group. Among the patients with ACS, moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy was associated with decreased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy in a nationwide population-based study representing routine clinical practice.

Moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with metabolic syndrome and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A post-hoc analysis of the RACING trial.

AIM: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this post-hoc subgroup analysis of the RACING trial, patients were analysed based on the presence of MetS. MetS was defined as meeting at least three of the five following criteria: (a) elevated waist circumference; (b) elevated triglycerides; (c) reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; (d) elevated blood pressure; and (e) elevated fasting glucose. The primary outcome was a 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or non-fatal stroke. RESULTS: Of the 3780 patients enrolled in the RACING trial, 1703 (45.1%) had MetS at baseline. The primary outcome rate was 10.1% and 10.3% in patients with MetS receiving ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy (hazard ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval = 0.72-1.32; p = .868). Lower rates of intolerance-related drug discontinuation or dose reduction (3.9% vs. 8.0%; p < .001) and lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (57 vs. 65 mg/dl; p < .001) were observed with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy. Furthermore, the rate of new-onset diabetes was 18.5% and 19.1% in each group (p = .822). There were no significant interactions between MetS and therapy regarding study outcomes in the total population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MetS and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy had comparable cardiovascular benefits with those of high-intensity statin monotherapy. Meanwhile, ezetimibe combination therapy was associated with lower drug intolerance and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, but there was no apparent between-group difference in new-onset diabetes.

Stopping Aspirin Within 1 Month After Stenting for Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome: The T-PASS Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Stopping aspirin within 1 month after implantation of a drug-eluting stent for ticagrelor monotherapy has not been exclusively evaluated for patients with acute coronary syndrome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ticagrelor monotherapy after <1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is noninferior to 12 months of ticagrelor-based DAPT for adverse cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, 2850 patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent drug-eluting stent implantation at 24 centers in South Korea were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice daily) after <1 month of DAPT (n=1426) or 12 months of ticagrelor-based DAPT (n=1424) between April 24, 2019, and May 31, 2022. The primary end point was the net clinical benefit as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding at 1 year after the index procedure in the intention-to-treat population. Key secondary end points were the individual components of the primary end point. RESULTS: Among 2850 patients who were randomized (mean age, 61 years; 40% ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction), 2823 (99.0%) completed the trial. Aspirin was discontinued at a median of 16 days (interquartile range, 12-25 days) in the group receiving ticagrelor monotherapy after <1 month of DAPT. The primary end point occurred in 40 patients (2.8%) in the group receiving ticagrelor monotherapy after <1-month DAPT, and in 73 patients (5.2%) in the ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT group (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.37-0.80]; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.002 for superiority). This finding was consistent in the per-protocol population as a sensitivity analysis. The occurrence of major bleeding was significantly lower in the ticagrelor monotherapy after <1-month DAPT group compared with the 12-month DAPT group (1.2% versus 3.4%; hazard ratio, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.20-0.61]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that stopping aspirin within 1 month for ticagrelor monotherapy is both noninferior and superior to 12-month DAPT for the 1-year composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding, primarily because of a significant reduction in major bleeding, among patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving drug-eluting stent implantation. Low event rates, which may suggest enrollment of relatively non-high-risk patients, should be considered in interpreting the trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03797651.

Comparison of Intracardiac Echocardiography Versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for Guidance During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) for guidance during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is limited. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of ICE versus transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for guiding TAVR. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included patients who underwent TAVR from August 18, 2015, to June 31, 2021. Eligible patients were stratified by echocardiographic modality (ICE or TEE) and anesthesia mode (monitored anesthesia care [MAC] or general anesthesia [GA]). Primary outcome was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for cardiovascular cause, or stroke, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) definition. Propensity score matching was performed, and study outcomes were analyzed for the matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 359 eligible patients, 120 patients were matched for the ICE-MAC and TEE-GA groups, respectively. The incidence of primary outcome was similar between matched groups (18.3% vs. 20.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.68; p=0.843). ICE-MAC and TEE-GA also had similar incidences of moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (4.2% vs. 5.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.23-2.82; p=0.758), new permanent pacemaker implantation, and VARC-3 types 2-4 bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: ICE was comparable to TEE for guidance during TAVR for the composite clinical efficacy outcome, with similar incidences of moderate-to-severe PVR, new permanent pacemaker implantation, and major bleeding. These results suggest that ICE could be a safe and effective alternative echocardiographic modality to TEE for guiding TAVR.

Optical coherence tomography-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) yields clinical outcomes comparable to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, there is a scarcity of data comparing the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided and IVUS-guided PCI in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to compare the clinical outcomes of OCT-guided vs IVUS-guided PCI for patients with AMI in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). METHODS: We identified 5260 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with a second-generation DES for AMI under IVUS or OCT guidance from pooled data derived from a series of Korean AMI registries between 2011 and 2020. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 535 (10.2%) and 4725 (89.8%) patients were treated under OCT and IVUS guidance, respectively. The 1-year target lesion failure rates were comparable between the OCT and IVUS groups before and after propensity score matching (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.42-2.05, P=.84). The OCT utilization rate did not exceed 5% of total patients treated with second-generation DES implantation during the study period. The primary factors for the selection of OCT over IVUS were the absence of chronic kidney disease, non-left main vessel disease, single-vessel disease, stent diameter <3mm, and stent length ≤ 25mm. CONCLUSIONS: OCT-guided PCI in patients with AMI treated with a second-generation DES provided comparable clinical outcomes for 1-year target lesion failure compared with IVUS-guided PCI.

Combination therapy with moderate-intensity atorvastatin and ezetimibe versus high-intensity atorvastatin monotherapy in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in practice: assessing RACING generalizability.

AIMS: Using rosuvastatin, the RACING (randomized comparison of efficacy and safety of lipid-lowering with statin monotherapy versus statin/ezetimibe combination for high-risk cardiovascular diseases) trial showed the beneficial effects of combining moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This study investigated whether the beneficial effects of combination lipid-lowering therapy extend to patients treated with atorvastatin, not rosuvastatin, in daily clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, a total of 31 993 patients who were prescribed atorvastatin after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation were identified from a nationwide cohort database: 6 215 patients with atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (combination lipid-lowering therapy) and 25 778 patients with atorvastatin 40-80 mg monotherapy. The primary endpoint was the 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure treatment, or non-fatal stroke in accordance with the RACING trial design. Combination lipid-lowering therapy was associated with a lower incidence of the primary endpoint (12.9% vs. 15.1% in high-intensity atorvastatin monotherapy; hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.88, p < 0.001). Compared with high-intensity atorvastatin monotherapy, combination lipid-lowering therapy was also significantly associated with lower rates of statin discontinuation (10.0% vs. 8.4%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.90, p < 0.001) and new-onset diabetes requiring medication (8.8% vs. 7.0%, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.92, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, a combined lipid-lowering approach utilizing ezetimibe and moderate-intensity atorvastatin was correlated with favorable clinical outcomes, drug compliance, and a reduced incidence of new-onset diabetes requiring medications in patients treated with DES implantation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04715594).

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.

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

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

Persistent and Recurrent Device-Related Thrombus After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Scarce data exist on the evolution of device-related thrombus (DRT) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of persistent and recurrent DRT in LAAC recipients. METHODS: Data were obtained from an international multicenter registry including 237 patients diagnosed with DRT after LAAC. Of these, 214 patients with a subsequent imaging examination after the initial diagnosis of DRT were included. Unfavorable evolution of DRT was defined as either persisting or recurrent DRT. RESULTS: DRT resolved in 153 (71.5%) cases and persisted in 61 (28.5%) cases. Larger DRT size (OR per 1-mm increase: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.15; P = 0.009) and female (OR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.12-5.26; P = 0.02) were independently associated with persistent DRT. After DRT resolution, 82 (53.6%) of 153 patients had repeated device imaging, with 14 (17.1%) cases diagnosed with recurrent DRT. Overall, 75 (35.0%) patients had unfavorable evolution of DRT, and the sole predictor was average thrombus size at initial diagnosis (OR per 1-mm increase: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.03-1.16; P = 0.003), with an optimal cutoff size of 7 mm (OR: 2.51; 95% CI: 1.39-4.52; P = 0.002). Unfavorable evolution of DRT was associated with a higher rate of thromboembolic events compared with resolved DRT (26.7% vs 15.1%; HR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.15-3.94; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: About one-third of DRT events had an unfavorable evolution (either persisting or recurring), with a larger initial thrombus size (particularly >7 mm) portending an increased risk. Unfavorable evolution of DRT was associated with a 2-fold higher risk of thromboembolic events compared with resolved DRT.

Association Between Body Mass Index and Clinical Outcomes According to Diabetes in Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effect of diabetes on the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and clinical outcomes in patients following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent implantation. METHODS: A total of 6,688 patients who underwent PCI were selected from five different registries led by Korean Multicenter Angioplasty Team. They were categorized according to their BMI into the following groups: underweight (<18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight to obese (≥25.0 kg/m²). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and target-vessel revascularization, were compared according to the BMI categories (underweight, normal and overweight to obese group) and diabetic status. All subjects completed 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 6,688 patients, 2,561 (38%) had diabetes. The underweight group compared to normal weight group had higher 1-year MACCE rate in both non-diabetic (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-4.84; p=0.039) and diabetic patients (adjusted HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.61-5.07; p<0.001). The overweight to obese group had a lower MACCE rate than the normal weight group in diabetic patients (adjusted HR, 0.67 [0.49-0.93]) but not in non-diabetic patients (adjusted HR, 1.06 [0.77-1.46]), with a significant interaction (p-interaction=0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Between the underweight and normal weight groups, the association between the BMI and clinical outcomes was consistent regardless of the presence of diabetes. However, better outcomes in overweight to obese over normal weight were observed only in diabetic patients. These results suggest that the association between BMI and clinical outcomes may differ according to the diabetic status.

Association of Prophylactic Distal Perfusion Cannulation With Mortality in Patients Receiving Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Prophylactic distal perfusion cannulation (PDPC) is protectively associated with limb ischemia in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) receiving femoral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). However, evidence supporting its benefits beyond limb ischemia reduction is scarce. We aimed to investigate whether PDPC, compared with no-PDPC, is associated with a lower risk of mortality in patients receiving VA-ECMO. From a multicenter registry, we identified 479 patients who underwent VA-ECMO support for refractory CS. The association of PDPC with 30-day mortality was assessed using multiple methods, including instrumental variable analysis, overlap weighting, and propensity score matching. Of the 479 patients, 154 (32.2%) received PDPC. The 30-day mortality rate was 33.1% in the PDPC group and 53.2% in the no-PDPC group. The instrumental variable analysis showed a protective association of PDPC with 30-day mortality (absolute risk difference -16.7%, 95% confidence interval -31.3% to -2.1%; relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.96). The findings were consistent in the overlap-weighted analysis (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.98) and in the propensity score-matched analysis (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.00). There were no significant differences in safety outcomes, including stroke, ECMO site bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and sepsis, between PDPC and no-PDPC. In conclusion, PDPC was associated with a lower risk of mortality at 30 days in patients with CS receiving VA-ECMO. The efficacy and safety of PDPC merit evaluation in future randomized studies. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02985008.

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.

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.