Incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with renal infarction: A retrospective cohort analysis of the Korean national health insurance registry.

BACKGROUND: Regarding the pathophysiology of renal infarction (RI), cardioembolic causes could have large proportion. However, there are notable variations in prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) among patients with RI across different studies, ranging from 17 to 65%. The primary objective of this study is to analyze the incidence of AF in patients with RI. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study enrolled 5200 patients with RI from the Korean National Institute of Health Services database spanning the years 2013 to 2019. The study accessed the AF incidence rate within 12 months in patients without a prior history of AF. Events occurring within 3 months of RI diagnosis were excluded to mitigate cases diagnosed during the initial screening or those with AF diagnoses that were potentially overlooked in the past. RESULTS: AF occurred in 19.1% of patients with RI over the entire period (median: 2.5 years, interquartile range 1.04-4.25 years). The majority of AF cases (16.1%) occured within the first year, resulting in an overall incidence rate of 7.0 per 100 person-years. Patients with newly developed AF were, on average, older than those who did not develop AF (64.1 vs. 57.3 years, P < 0.001). The independent predictors of AF were identified as age, male sex, higher body mass index, current smoking, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should consider the implementation of active rhythm monitoring for patients with RI to identify potential occurrence of subclinical AF, even if not initially diagnosed during the initial screening after RI diagnosis.

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.

Clinical efficacy of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor in de novo heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We aimed to analyze the efficacy of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) by the disease course of heart failure (HF). METHODS: We evaluated 227 patients with HF in a multi-center retrospective cohort that included those with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% undergoing ARNI treatment. The patients were divided into patients with newly diagnosed HF with ARNI treatment initiated within 6 months of diagnosis (de novo HF group) and those who were diagnosed or admitted for HF exacerbation for more than 6 months prior to initiation of ARNI treatment (prior HF group). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death and worsening HF, including hospitalization or an emergency visit for HF aggravation within 12 months. RESULTS: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were reported between the de novo and prior HF groups. The prior HF group was significantly associated with a higher primary outcome (23.9 vs. 9.4%) than the de novo HF group (adjusted hazard ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval 1.06-5.96, p = 0.036), although on a higher initial dose. The de novo HF group showed better LVEF improvement after 1 year (12.0% vs 7.4%, p = 0.010). Further, the discontinuation rate of diuretics after 1 year was numerically higher in the de novo group than the prior HF group (34.4 vs 18.5%, p = 0.064). CONCLUSION: The de novo HF group had a lower risk of the primary composite outcome than the prior HF group in patients with reduced ejection fraction who were treated with ARNI.

Temporal Trend of the Incidence and Characteristics of Renal Infarction: Korean Nationwide Population Study.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale studies about epidemiologic characteristics of renal infarction (RI) are few. In this study, we aimed to analyze the incidence and prevalence of RI with comorbidities in the South Korean population. METHODS: We investigated the medical history of the entire South Korean adult population between 2013 and 2019 using the National Health Insurance Service database (n = 51,849,591 in 2019). Diagnosis of RI comorbidities were confirmed with International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Epidemiologic characteristics, distribution of comorbidities according to etiologic mechanisms, and trend of antithrombotic agents were estimated. RESULTS: During the 7-years, 10,496 patients were newly diagnosed with RI. The incidence rate increased from 2.68 to 3.06 per 100,000 person-years during the study period. The incidence rate of RI increased with age peaking in the 70s with 1.41 times male predominance. The most common comorbidity was hypertension, followed by dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus. Regarding etiologic risk factor distribution, high embolic risk group, renovascular disease group, and hypercoagulable state group accounted for 16.6%, 29.1%, and 13.7% on average, respectively. For the antithrombotic treatment of RI, the prescription of antiplatelet agent gradually decreased from 17.0% to 13.0% while that of anticoagulation agent was maintained around 35%. The proportion of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants remarkably increased from only 1.4% to 17.6%. CONCLUSION: Considering the progressively increasing incidence of RI and high prevalence of coexisting risk factors, constant efforts to raise awareness of the disease are necessary. The current epidemiologic investigation of RI would be the stepping-stone to establishing future studies about clinical outcomes and optimal treatment strategies.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Delayed Hospitalization for Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the number of patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) has reduced, whereas increased mortality was reported. A plausible explanation for increased mortality was prehospital delay because of patients' reticence of their symptoms. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between prehospital delay and clinical outcomes in patients with NSTEMI METHODS: Among 13,104 patients from the Korea-Acute-Myocardial-Infarction-Registry-National Institutes of Health, the authors evaluated 6,544 patients with NSTEMI. Study patients were categorized into 2 groups according to symptom-to-door (StD) time (<24 or ≥24 hours). The primary outcome was 3-year all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was 3-year composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Overall, 1,827 (27.9%) patients were classified into the StD time ≥24 hours group. The StD time ≥24 hours group had higher all-cause mortality (17.0% vs 10.5%; P < 0.001) and incidence of secondary outcomes (23.3% vs 15.7%; P < 0.001) than the StD time <24 hours group. The higher all-cause mortality in the StD time ≥24 hours group was observed consistently in the subgroup analysis regarding age, sex, atypical chest pain, dyspnea, Q-wave in electrocardiogram, use of emergency medical services, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, left ventricle dysfunction, TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) flow, and the GRACE risk score. In the multivariable analysis, independent predictors of prehospital delay were the elderly, women, nonspecific symptoms such as atypical chest pain or dyspnea, diabetes, and no use of emergency medical services. CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital delay is associated with an increased risk of 3-year all-cause mortality in patients with NSTEMI. (iCReaT Study No. C110016).

Randomized Trial Evaluating Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Treatment of Chronic Total Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Procedural results for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in coronary vessels with chronic total occlusion (CTO) have improved in recent years, and PCI strategies have moved toward more complete revascularization with more liberal use of CTO-PCI. However, evidence evaluating CTO-PCI is limited to observational studies and small clinical trials. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, PCI-eligible patients were assigned to receive either 1 of 2 strategies: PCI or no PCI for the qualifying de novo CTO lesion with the option for PCI of obstructive non-CTO lesions at the discretion of the operator. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any revascularization. Health-related quality of life was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Because of slow recruitment, the trial was stopped before completion of the 1284 planned enrollments. RESULTS: Between March 2010 and September 2016, 834 patients were randomly assigned to the CTO-PCI (n=417) or no CTO-PCI (n=398) strategy. Among the patients assigned to the no CTO-PCI strategy, 78 (19.6%) crossed over to receive staged CTO-PCI within 3 days of randomization. The overall CTO-PCI success rate was 90.6%. Serious nonfatal complications associated with CTO-PCI occurred in 3 patients (1 stroke, 1 cardiac tamponade, and 1 patient with recurrent episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmia induced by intracoronary thrombus). Approximately half of the patients in each group underwent PCI for an average of 1.3 non-CTO lesions, resulting in a comparable residual SYNTAX score (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery; 3.7±5.4 versus 4.0±5.9, P=0.42) confined to non-CTO vessels. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years (interquartile range, 2.4 to 5.1 years), there was no significant difference between the CTO-PCI and the no CTO-PCI strategies in the incidence of the primary end point (22.3% versus 22.4%, hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.37; P=0.86). Both CTO-PCI and no CTO-PCI strategy were associated with significant improvements but without between-group differences in disease-specific health status that was sustained through 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: CTO-PCI was feasible with high success rates. There was no difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events with CTO-PCI versus no CTO-PCI, but the study was limited by low power for clinical end points and high crossover rates between groups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01078051.

A multicenter, randomized, and double-blind phase IV clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine orotate/valsartan 5/160 mg versus valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide 160/12.5 mg in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by valsartan 160 mg monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether the effectiveness and safety of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of amlodipine orotate/valsartan (AML/VAL) 5/160 mg are noninferior to those of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (VAL/HCTZ) 160/12.5 mg in hypertensive patients with inadequate response to valsartan 160 mg monotherapy. METHODS: This 8-week, active-controlled, parallel-group, fixed-dose, multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled, and noninferiority trial was conducted at 17 cardiovascular centers in the Republic of Korea. Eligible patients had mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) ≥90 mm Hg despite monotherapy with valsartan 160 mg for 4 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with AML/VAL 5/160 mg FDC (AML/VAL) group or VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg FDC (VAL/HCTZ) group once daily for 8 weeks. A total of 238 patients were enrolled (AML/VAL group, n = 121; VAL/HCTZ group, n = 117), of whom 228 completed the study. RESULTS: At 8 weeks after randomization, msDBP was significantly decreased in both groups (-9.44 ±â€Š0.69 mm Hg in the AML/VAL group and -7.47 ±â€Š0.71 mm Hg in the VAL/HCTZ group, both P < .001 vs baseline). Between group difference was -1.96 ±â€Š1.00 mm Hg, indicating that AML/VAL 5/160 mg FDC was not inferior to VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg FDC at primary efficacy endpoint. Control rate of BP defined as the percentage of patients achieving mean sitting SBP (msSBP) <140 mm Hg or msDBP <90 mm Hg (target BP) from baseline to week 8 was significantly higher in the AML/VAL group than that in the VAL/HCTZ group (84.3% [n = 102] in the AML/VAL group vs 71.3% [n = 82] in the VAL/HCTZ group, P = .016). At 8 weeks after randomization, mean uric acid level was significantly increased in the VAL/HCTZ group compared to that at baseline (0.64 ±â€Š0.08 mg/dL; P < .001). However, it was slightly decreased from baseline in the AML/VAL group (-0.12 ±â€Š0.08 mg/dL; P = .085). The intergroup difference was significant (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and safety AML/VAL 5/160 mg FDC are noninferior to those of VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg FDC in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled by valsartan 160 mg monotherapy.

Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Predicts Guidewire Crossing and Success of Percutaneous Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion: Korean Multicenter CTO CT Registry Score as a Tool for Assessing Difficulty in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: We developed a model that predicts difficulty of percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) using coronary computed tomographic angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 684 CTO lesions with preprocedural computed tomographic angiography were enrolled from 4 centers. Data were randomly divided into derivation and validation datasets at 2:1 ratio. The end point was successful guidewire crossing ≤30 minutes, which was met in 50%. The KCCT (Korean Multicenter CTO CT Registry) score was developed based on independent predictors identified by multivariable analysis, which were proximal blunt entry, proximal side branch, bending, occlusion length ≥15 mm, severe calcification, whole luminal calcification, reattempt, and ≥12 months or unknown duration of occlusion. The KCCT score was compared with the other prediction scores, including angiography-based J-CTO, PROGRESS-CTO, CL-score, and CT-based CT-RECTOR. The probability of guidewire crossing ≤30 minutes declined consistently from 100% to 0% according to the KCCT score (P<0.01, all). The KCCT score showed higher discriminative performance compared with the other scoring systems (c-statistics=0.78 versus 0.65-0.72, P<0.001, all). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of a KCCT score of <4 for guidewire crossing ≤30 minutes was 70%, 68%, 72%, 73%, and 70%, respectively. The KCCT score also showed consistent results with procedural success (P<0.05, all). These results could be reproduced in validation data set (P<0.05, all). CONCLUSIONS: KCCT scoring could predict successful guidewire crossing ≤30 minutes and also procedural success. KCCT scoring may enable noninvasive grading difficulty of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention.

Efficacy and safety of two fixed-dose combinations of S-amlodipine and telmisartan (CKD-828) versus S-amlodipine monotherapy in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled using S-amlodipine monotherapy: an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, Phase III clinical study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy and safety of CKD-828, a fixed-dose combination of S-amlodipine (the more active isomer of amlodipine besylate, which is calcium channel blocker) and telmisartan (long acting angiotensin receptor blocker), in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled with S-amlodipine monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (N=187) who failed to respond after 4-week S-amlodipine 2.5 mg monotherapy (sitting diastolic blood pressure [sitDBP] ≥90 mmHg) to receive CKD-828 2.5/40 mg (n=63), CKD-828 2.5/80 mg (n=63), or S-amlodipine 2.5 mg (n=61) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint, mean sitDBP change from baseline to Week 8, was compared between the combination (CKD-828 2.5/40 mg and CKD-828 2.5/80 mg) and S-amlodipine monotherapy groups. The safety was assessed based on adverse events, vital signs, and physical examination findings. RESULTS: After the 8-week treatment, changes in sitDBP/systolic BP (SBP) were -9.67±6.50/-12.89±11.78, -10.72±6.19/-13.79±9.41, and -4.93±7.26/-4.55±11.27 mmHg in the CKD-828 2.5/40 mg (P<0.0001/P<0.0001), CKD-828 2.5/80 mg (P<0.0001/P<0.0001), and S-amlodipine 2.5 mg (P<0.0001/P=0.0027) groups, respectively, which were all significant BP reductions. At Week 8, the CKD-828 2.5/40 mg (sitDBP/SBP: P=0.0002/P<0.0001) and CKD-828 2.5/80 mg (sitDBP/SBP: P=0.0001/P<0.0001) showed superior BP-lowering effects to S-amlodipine 2.5 mg (P<0.001). At Week 4, all groups showed significant antihypertensive effects but both CKD-828 combinations (CKD-828 2.5/40 mg and CKD-828 2.5/80 mg) exhibited superior BP-lowering effects to that of S-amlodipine 2.5 mg (sitDBP/SBP: P=0.0028/P=0.0001 and P<0.0001/P=0.0012, respectively). The adverse event incidence was significantly lower in the CKD-828 2.5/40 mg (9.52%, P=0.0086) than in the S-amlodipine 2.5 mg group (27.87%) and increasing the telmisartan dose induced no unexpected adverse events, suggesting the safety of CKD-828. CONCLUSION: CKD-828 is an effective and safe option for patients with inadequate responses to S-amlodipine monotherapy.

Blood Pressure and Cholesterol-lowering Efficacy of a Fixed-dose Combination With Irbesartan and Atorvastatin in Patients With Hypertension and Hypercholesterolemia: A Randomized, Double-blind, Factorial, Multicenter Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: A fixed-dose combination of a stain and an antihypertensive drug may be useful for the treatment of patients with hypertension and hyperlipidemia. It may also improve patient drug compliance to help control risk factors of cardiovascular disease. This study was designed to evaluate the blood pressure-lowering and cholesterol-lowering effect of a fixed-dose combination of irbesartan-atorvastatin compared with monotherapy by either agent over an 8-week treatment period. METHODS: Patients with comorbid hypertension and hypercholesterolemia were screened for this randomized, double-blind, Phase III study. Eligible study patients were randomly assigned to test groups receiving a combination of irbesartan 300 mg and atorvastatin 40 mg or 80 mg (IRB300 + ATO40 and IRB300 + ATO80). Comparator groups comprised monotherapy groups with irbesartan 300 mg (IRB300) or atorvastatin 40 mg (ATO40) or atorvastatin 80 mg (ATO80), or placebo. Patients who were eligible at screening were subjected to a 4- to 6-week washout period before commencing 8 weeks of therapy per their assigned group. The primary efficacy end points were percent change in LDL-C and sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels from baseline to end of therapy. Tolerability profiles of combination therapy were compared with other groups. FINDINGS: A total of 733 patients with comorbid hypertension and hypercholesterolemia were screened for this study; 230 eligible patients were randomized to treatment. The mean age of patients was 58.9 (8.5) years, and their mean body mass index was 25.8 (3.2) kg/m2. More than two thirds (70.9%) of the study patients were male. Mean LDL-C and sitting DBP levels at baseline were 149.54 (29.19) mg/dL and 92.32 (6.03) mm Hg, respectively. Percent reductions in LDL-C after 8 weeks were 46.74% (2.06%) in the IRB300 + ATO40 group and 48.98% (2.12%) in the IRB300 + ATO80 group; these values were 47.13% (3.21%) and 48.30% (2.98%) in the ATO40 and ATO80 comparator groups. Similarly, a reduction in sitting DBP after 8 weeks was -8.50 (1.06) mm Hg in the IRB300 + ATO40 group and 10.66 (1.08) mm Hg in the IRB300 + ATO80 group compared with 8.40 (1.65) mm Hg in the IRB300 group. The incidence rate for treatment-emergent adverse events was 22.27% and was similar between the monotherapy and combination groups. IMPLICATIONS: A once-daily combination product of irbesartan and atorvastatin provided an effective, safe, and more compliable treatment for patients with coexisting hypertension and hyperlipidemia. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01442987.

Erratum to: Additive Beneficial Effects of Valsartan Combined with Rosuvastatin in the Treatment of Hypercholesterolemic Hypertensive Patients.

[This corrects the article on p. 225 in vol. 45, PMID: 26023311.].

Additive beneficial effects of valsartan combined with rosuvastatin in the treatment of hypercholesterolemic hypertensive patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy and safety of valsartan and rosuvastatin combination therapy with each treatment alone in hypercholesterolemic hypertensive patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients who met inclusion criteria were randomized to receive 1 of the following 2-month drug regimens: valsartan 160 mg plus rosuvastatin 20 mg, valsartan 160 mg plus placebo, or rosuvastatin 20 mg plus placebo. The primary efficacy variables were change in sitting diastolic blood pressure (sitDBP) and sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP), and percentage change in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) in the combination, valsartan, and rosuvastatin groups. Adverse events (AEs) during the study were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients were screened and 123 of them were finally randomized. Changes of sitDBP by least squares mean (LSM) were -11.1, -7.2, and -3.6 mm Hg, respectively, and was greater in the combination, as compared to both valsartan (p=0.02) and rosuvastatin (p<0.001). Changes of sitSBP by LSM were -13.2, -10.8, and -4.9 mm Hg, and was greater in the combination, as compared to rosuvastatin (p=0.006) and not valsartan (p=0.42). Percentage changes of LDL-C by LSM were -52, -4, and -47% in each group, and was greater in the combination, as compared to valsartan (p<0.001), similar to rosuvastatin (p=0.16). Most AEs were mild and resolved by the end of the study. CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with valsartan and rosuvastatin exhibited an additive blood pressure-lowering effect with acceptable tolerability, as compared to valsartan monotherapy. Its lipid lowering effect was similar to rosuvatatin monotherapy.

Randomized Comparisons Between Different Stenting Approaches for Bifurcation Coronary Lesions With or Without Side Branch Stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention techniques using drug-eluting stents for bifurcation coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: The optimal bifurcation stenting technique needs to be evaluated. METHODS: The trial included 2 randomization studies separated by the presence of side branch (SB) stenosis for patients having non-left main bifurcation lesions. For 306 patients without SB stenosis, the routine final kissing balloon or leave-alone approaches were compared. Another randomization study compared the crush or single-stent approaches for 419 patients with SB stenosis. RESULTS: Between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups for nondiseased SB lesions, angiographic restenosis occurred in 17.9% versus 9.3% (p=0.064), comprising 15.1% versus 3.7% for the main branch (p=0.004) and 2.8% versus 5.6% for the SB (p=0.50) from 214 patients (69.9%) receiving 8-month angiographic follow-up. Incidence of major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization over 1 year was 14.0% versus 11.6% between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups (p=0.57). In another randomization study for diseased SB lesions, 28.2% in the single-stent group received SB stents. From 300 patients (71.6%) receiving angiographic follow-up, between the crush and single-stent groups, angiographic restenosis rate was 8.4% versus 11.0% (p=0.44), comprising 5.2% versus 4.8% for the main branch (p=0.90) and 3.9% versus 8.3% for the SB (p=0.12). One-year major adverse cardiac events rate between the crush and single-stent groups was 17.9% versus 18.5% (p=0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Angiographic and clinical outcomes were excellent after percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents with any stent technique for non-left main bifurcation lesions once the procedure was performed successfully.

Efficacy and safety of 30-mg fimasartan for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension: an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III clinical study.

PURPOSE: The standard 60-mg dose of fimasartan, a newly developed selective angiotensin II receptor blocker, is effective and safe for use in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose (30 mg) fimasartan and placebo or valsartan (80 mg) for 8 weeks in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: In this randomized trial, 293 patients (219 men; mean age, 54.24 [9.77] years) with mild to moderate hypertension were enrolled. After randomization to receive 30-mg fimasartan (n = 115), placebo (n = 117), or 80-mg valsartan (n = 61), the treatment dose was kept constant without dose escalation for 8 weeks. The primary end point was improvement in sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) from baseline to 8 weeks that was compared between treatments with low-dose fimasartan and placebo. The secondary end point was the overall efficacy and safety of low-dose fimasartan compared with that of placebo or valsartan. FINDINGS: At week 8, SiDBP changed by -9.93 (8.86) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and by -2.08 (9.47) mm Hg in the placebo group, which indicated significant antihypertensive efficacy (P < 0.0001). Efficacy was shown at week 4 as measured by SiDBP (-9.96 [7.73] vs -2.27 [7.85] mm Hg; P < 0.0001) or sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) (-16.18 [14.44] vs -1.95 [13.48] mmHg; P < 0.0001) and at week 8 as determined by SiSBP (-15.35 [16.63] vs -2.30 [14.91] mm Hg; P < 0.0001). The fimasartan group exhibited more potent antihypertensive efficacy than the valsartan group both at week 4 (SiDBP, -9.96 [7.73] vs -6.53 [9.58] mm Hg [P = 0.0123]; SiSBP, -16.18 [14.4] vs -7.65 [12.89] mm Hg [P = 0.0002]) and at week 8 (SiDBP, -9.93 [8.86] vs -5.47 [8.96] mm Hg [P = 0.0021]; SiSBP, -15.35 [16.63] vs -7.49 [13.68] mm Hg [P = 0.0021]). Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild (89 of 95), and there were no serious TEAEs. The incidence of TEAEs was 19.1% in the fimasartan group, 22.6% in the placebo group, and 13.6% in the valsartan group, with no significant differences. IMPLICATIONS: Low-dose fimasartan (30 mg) was well tolerated during the study period with no significant TEAEs. Low-dose fimasartan had an effective blood pressure-lowering effect that was greater than that of 80-mg valsartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01672476.

Comparison of biolimus A9-eluting (Nobori) and everolimus-eluting (Promus Element) stents in patients with de novo native long coronary artery lesions: a randomized Long Drug-Eluting Stent V trial.

BACKGROUND: Procedural and clinical outcomes still remain unfavorable for patients with long coronary lesions who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. The current study, therefore, evaluated 2 innovative drug-eluting stents for the management of long-lesion coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: This randomized, multicenter, prospective trial, called the Long Drug-Eluting Stent (LONG-DES) V trial, compared the biodegradable polymer-based biolimus A9-eluting stent (BES) and the durable polymer-based platinum chromium everolimus-eluting stent (PtCr-EES) in 500 patients with long (≥ 25 mm) coronary lesions. The primary end point of the trial was in-segment late luminal loss at the 9-month angiographic follow-up. The BES and PtCr-EES groups had similar baseline characteristics, with a slightly shorter lesion length in the BES group versus the PtCr-EES group (29.24 ± 12.17 versus 32.27 ± 13.84 mm; P = 0.016). In-segment late luminal loss was comparable between the 2 groups at the 9-month angiographic follow-up (BES, 0.14 ± 0.38 versus PtCr-EES, 0.11 ± 0.37 mm; difference, 0.031; 95% confidence interval, -0.053 to 0.091; P = 0.03 for a noninferiority margin of 0.11, P = 0.45 for superiority), as was in-stent late luminal loss (0.20 ± 0.41 versus 0.24 ± 0.38 mm; P = 0.29). The incidence of in-segment (6.1% versus 4.9%; P = 0.63) and in-stent (3.7% versus 4.9%; P = 0.59) binary restenosis was also similar between the groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (41, 16.7% in BES versus 42, 16.5% in PtCr-EES; P=0.94). CONCLUSIONS: BES and PtCr-EES implantation showed analogous angiographic and clinical outcomes for patients with de novo long coronary lesions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01186120.

Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The risks and benefits of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy remain unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized comparison trial was conducted in 24 clinical centers in Korea. In total, 5045 patients who received drug-eluting stents and were free of major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding for at least 12 months after stent placement were enrolled between July 2007 and July 2011. Patients were randomized to receive aspirin alone (n=2514) or clopidogrel plus aspirin (n=2531). The primary end point was a composite of death resulting from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke 24 months after randomization. At 24 months, the primary end point occurred in 57 aspirin-alone group patients (2.4%) and 61 dual-therapy group patients (2.6%; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.35; P=0.75). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of the individual risks of death resulting from any cause, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke. Major bleeding occurred in 24 (1.1%) and 34 (1.4%) of the aspirin-alone group and dual-therapy group patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.20; P=0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who were on 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy without complications, an additional 24 months of dual antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin alone did not reduce the risk of the composite end point of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01186146.