Preventive percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy alone for the treatment of vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaques (PREVENT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome and sudden cardiac death are often caused by rupture and thrombosis of lipid-rich atherosclerotic coronary plaques (known as vulnerable plaques), many of which are non-flow-limiting. The safety and effectiveness of focal preventive therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention of vulnerable plaques in reducing adverse cardiac events are unknown. We aimed to assess whether preventive percutaneous coronary intervention of non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques improves clinical outcomes compared with optimal medical therapy alone. METHODS: PREVENT was a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial done at 15 research hospitals in four countries (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and New Zealand). Patients aged 18 years or older with non-flow-limiting (fractional flow reserve >0·80) vulnerable coronary plaques identified by intracoronary imaging were randomly assigned (1:1) to either percutaneous coronary intervention plus optimal medical therapy or optimal medical therapy alone, in block sizes of 4 or 6, stratified by diabetes status and the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention in a non-study target vessel. Follow-up continued annually in all enrolled patients until the last enrolled patient reached 2 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable or progressive angina, assessed in the intention-to-treat population at 2 years. Time-to-first-event estimates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared with the log-rank test. This report is the principal analysis from the trial and includes all long-term analysed data. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02316886, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2015, and Sept 29, 2021, 5627 patients were screened for eligibility, 1606 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned to percutaneous coronary intervention (n=803) or optimal medical therapy alone (n=803). 1177 (73%) patients were men and 429 (27%) were women. 2-year follow-up for the primary outcome assessment was completed in 1556 (97%) patients (percutaneous coronary intervention group n=780; optimal medical therapy group n=776). At 2 years, the primary outcome occurred in three (0·4%) patients in the percutaneous coronary intervention group and in 27 (3·4%) patients in the medical therapy group (absolute difference -3·0 percentage points [95% CI -4·4 to -1·8]; p=0·0003). The effect of preventive percutaneous coronary intervention was directionally consistent for each component of the primary composite outcome. Serious clinical or adverse events did not differ between the percutaneous coronary intervention group and the medical therapy group: at 2 years, four (0·5%) versus ten (1·3%) patients died (absolute difference -0·8 percentage points [95% CI -1·7 to 0·2]) and nine (1·1%) versus 13 (1·7%) patients had myocardial infarction (absolute difference -0·5 percentage points [-1·7 to 0·6]). INTERPRETATION: In patients with non-flow-limiting vulnerable coronary plaques, preventive percutaneous coronary intervention reduced major adverse cardiac events arising from high-risk vulnerable plaques, compared with optimal medical therapy alone. Given that PREVENT is the first large trial to show the potential effect of the focal treatment for vulnerable plaques, these findings support consideration to expand indications for percutaneous coronary intervention to include non-flow-limiting, high-risk vulnerable plaques. FUNDING: The CardioVascular Research Foundation, Abbott, Yuhan Corp, CAH-Cordis, Philips, and Infraredx, a Nipro company.

Preventive PCI or medical therapy alone for vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaque: Rationale and design of the randomized, controlled PREVENT trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes are commonly caused by the rupture of vulnerable plaque, which often appear angiographically not severe. Although pharmacologic management is considered standard therapy for stabilizing plaque vulnerability, the potential role of preventive local treatment for vulnerable plaque has not yet been determined. The PREVENT trial was designed to compare preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) with OMT alone in patients with functionally nonsignificant high-risk vulnerable plaques. METHODS: The PREVENT trial is a multinational, multicenter, prospective, open-label, active-treatment-controlled randomized trial. Eligible patients have at least 1 angiographically significant stenosis (diameter stenosis >50% by visual estimation) without functional significance (fractional flow reserve [FFR] >0.80). Target lesions are assessed by intracoronary imaging and must meet at least 2 imaging criteria for vulnerable plaque; (1) minimal lumen area <4.0 mm2; (2) plaque burden >70%; (3) maximal lipid core burden index in a 4 mm segment >315 by near infrared spectroscopy; and (4) thin cap fibroatheroma as determined by virtual histology or optical coherence tomography. Enrolled patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either preventive PCI with either bioabsorbable vascular scaffolds or metallic everolimus-eluting stents plus OMT or OMT alone. The primary endpoint is target-vessel failure, defined as the composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischemic-driven target-vessel revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable or progressive angina, at 2 years after randomization. RESULTS: Enrollment of a total of 1,608 patients has been completed. Follow-up of the last enrolled patient will be completed in September 2023 and primary results are expected to be available in early 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The PREVENT trial is the first large-scale, randomized trial to evaluate the effect of preventive PCI on non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques containing multiple high-risk features that is appropriately powered for clinical outcomes. PREVENT will provide compelling evidence as to whether preventive PCI of vulnerable plaques plus OMT improves patient outcomes compared with OMT alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT02316886. KEY POINTS: The PREVENT trial is the first, large-scale randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of preventive PCI on non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaque with high-risk features. It will provide compelling evidence to determine whether PCI of focal vulnerable plaques on top of OMT improves patient outcomes.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: results from a prematurely discontinued randomized multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between immediate and staged complete revascularization in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD). METHODS: A total of 248 patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, and multicenter registry. Immediate revascularization was defined as one-time PCI of culprit and non-culprit lesions at the initial procedure. Staged revascularization was defined as PCI of non-culprit lesions at a later date (mean, 4.4 days; interquartile range, 1-11.4), following initial culprit revascularization. The end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of total death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and revascularization), any individual components of MACE, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, and stroke at 12 months. RESULTS: During a follow-up of 1 year, MACE occurred in 12 patients (11.6%) in the immediate revascularization group and in 8 patients (7.5%) in staged revascularization group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-3.91). The incidence of total death was numerically higher in the immediate group than in the staged group (9.7% vs 2.8%, HR 3.53, 95% CI 0.97-12.84); There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in risks of any individual component of MACE, cardiac death, stroke, and in-hospital complications, such as need for transfusion, bleeding, acute renal failure, and acute heart failure. This study was prematurely terminated due to halt of production of everolimus-eluting stents (manufactured as PROMUS Element by Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts). CONCLUSIONS: Due to its limited power, no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding complete revascularization strategy from the present study. Further large randomized clinical trials would be warranted to confirm optimal timing of complete revascularization for patients with STEMI and MVD.

Safety and Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice.

BACKGROUND: The risk of device thrombosis and device-oriented clinical outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was reported to be significantly higher than with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, optimal device implantation may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving BVS. The current study evaluated mid-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS with meticulous device optimization under intravascular imaging guidance. METHODS: The SMART-REWARD and PERSPECTIVE-PCI registries in Korea prospectively enrolled 390 patients with BVS and 675 patients with DES, respectively. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years and the secondary major endpoint was patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) at 2 years. RESULTS: Patient-level pooled analysis evaluated 1,003 patients (377 patients with BVS and 626 patients with DES). Mean scaffold diameter per lesion was 3.24 ± 0.30 mm in BVS group. Most BVSs were implanted with pre-dilatation (90.9%), intravascular imaging guidance (74.9%), and post-dilatation (73.1%) at proximal to mid segment (81.9%) in target vessel. Patients treated with BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF (2.9% vs. 3.7%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.283, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487-3.378, P = 0.615) and 2-year POCO (4.5% vs. 5.9%, adjusted HR, 1.413, 95% CI, 0.663-3.012, P = 0.370) than those with DES. The rate of 2-year definite or probable device thrombosis (0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.424) was also similar. The sensitivity analyses consistently showed comparable risk of TVF and POCO between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: With meticulous device optimization under imaging guidance and avoidance of implantation in small vessels, BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF and device thrombosis with DES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02601404, NCT04265443.

Clinical Implication of 'Obesity Paradox' in Elderly Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of body mass index (BMI), especially in the elderly with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), has not been sufficiently evaluated. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the clinical impact of BMI in very old patients (≥80 years) with AMI. METHODS: The study analysed 2,489 AMI patients aged ≥80 years from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry and the Korea Working Group on Myocardial Infarction (KAMIR/KorMI) registries between November 2005 and March 2012. The study population was categorised into four groups based on their BMI: underweight (n=301), normal weight (n=1,150), overweight (n=890), and obese (n=148). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularisation, and target vessel revascularisation. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics among the four groups were similar, except for hypertension (45.1 vs 58.4 vs 66.2 vs 69.9%, respectively; p<0.001) and diabetes (16.6 vs 23.6 vs 30.7 vs 35.1%, respectively; p<0.001). Coronary care unit length of stay was significantly different among the four groups during hospitalisation (5.3±5.9 vs 4.8±6.8 vs 4.2±4.0 vs 3.5±2.1 days; p=0.007). MACE (16.9 vs 14.9 vs 13.7 vs 8.8%; p=0.115) and cardiac death (10.3 vs 8.4 vs 7.9 vs 4.1%; p=0.043) less frequently occurred in the obese group than in other groups during the 1-year follow-up. A multivariate regression model showed obese status (BMI ≥27.5 kg/m2) as an independent predictor of reduced MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-0.69; p=0.010) along with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40%) as a predictor of increased MACE (HR,1.87; 95% CI, 1.31-2.68; p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Body mass index in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction was significantly associated with coronary care unit stay and clinical cardiovascular outcomes.

Clinically Significant Bleeding With Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Korean Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Intended for Invasive Management: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Owing to the differential propensity for bleeding and ischemic events with response to antiplatelet therapy, the safety and effectiveness of potent P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor in East Asian populations remain uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, 800 Korean patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndromes with or without ST elevation and intended for invasive management were randomly assigned to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) or clopidogrel (600 mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter). The primary safety outcome was clinically significant bleeding (a composite of major bleeding or minor bleeding according to PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) criteria at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the incidence of clinically significant bleeding was significantly higher in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (11.7% [45/400] vs 5.3% [21/400]; hazard ratio [HR], 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 3.79; P=0.002). The incidences of major bleeding (7.5% [29/400] vs 4.1% [16/400], P=0.04) and fatal bleeding (1% [4/400] vs 0%, P=0.04) were also higher in the ticagrelor group. The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke was not significantly different between the ticagrelor group and the clopidogrel group (9.2% [36/400] vs 5.8% [23/400]; HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.74; P=0.07). Overall safety and effectiveness findings were similar with the use of several different analytic methods and in multiple subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In Korean acute coronary syndrome patients intended to receive early invasive management, standard-dose ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel was associated with a higher incidence of clinically significant bleeding. The numerically higher incidence of ischemic events should be interpreted with caution, given the present trial was underpowered to draw any conclusion regarding efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02094963.

Clinical Implications of Bifurcation Angles in Left Main Bifurcation Intervention Using a Two-Stent Technique.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact of 3 bifurcation angles in left main (LM) bifurcation treated with the 2-stent technique. BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the impact of bifurcation angles after LM percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Using patient-level 4 multicenter registries in Korea, 462 patients undergoing LM bifurcation PCI with the 2-stent technique were identified (181 crush, 167 T-stenting; 63% 1st generation drug-eluting stent (DES), 37% 2nd generation DES). Three bifurcation angles, between the LM and left anterior descending (LAD), the LM and left circumflex (LCX), and the LAD and LCX, were measured. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: In patients treated with the crush technique, the best cutoff value (BCV) to predict TLF was 152° of the LM-LAD angle. In the crush group, a significantly higher TLF rate, mostly driven by TLR, was observed in the LM-LAD angle ≥152° group compared with the <152° group (35.7% vs. 14.6%; adjusted hazard ratio 3.476; 95% confidence interval 1.612-7.492). An LM-LAD angle ≥152° was an independent predictor of TLF. In the T-stenting, no bifurcation angle affected the clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In LM bifurcation PCI using the 2-stent technique, wide LM-LAD angle (≥152°) was associated with a greater risk of TLF in the crush, whereas none of the bifurcation angles affected T-stenting outcomes.

Effect of Pre-Procedural Beta-Blocker on Clinical Outcome after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome.

The efficacy of pre-procedural beta-blocker use in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is not well established in the current percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) era. We investigate the effect of pre-procedural beta-blocker use on clinical outcomes in patients with ACS undergoing PCI. Among 44,967 consecutive cases of PCI enrolled in the nationwide, retrospective, multicenter registry (K-PCI registry), 31,040 patients with ACS were selected and analyzed. We classified patients into pre-procedural beta-blocker group (n = 8,678) and pre-procedural no-beta-blocker group (n = 22,362) according to the use of beta-blockers at least for two weeks before index PCI. Propensity score-matching analysis was performed and resulted in 7,445 pairs. The primary outcome was in-hospital cardiac death. In propensity score-matched populations, the pre-procedural beta-blocker group had a lower incidence of in-hospital cardiac death compared with the pre-procedural no-beta-blocker group (1.1% versus 2.0%, unadjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.73, P < 0.01). In subgroup analysis, the pre-procedural beta-blocker group had a lower incidence of in-hospital cardiac death, compared with the pre-procedural no-beta-blocker group in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction subpopulation (3.1% versus 6.1%, unadjusted OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.34-0.71, P < 0.01) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction subpopulation (1.5% versus 2.9%, unadjusted OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.79, P < 0.01). However, in unstable angina subpopulation, the in-hospital cardiac death rate was comparable between both groups. In conclusion, the use of pre-procedural beta-blocker was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital cardiac death in patients with ACS undergoing PCI. This result adds to the body of evidence that use of pre-procedural beta-blocker in patients with ACS might be reasonable.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Ticagrelor and Prasugrel in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction　- Results From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND: There is little information regarding comparison of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We sought to compare clinical outcomes between ticagrelor and prasugrel in STEMI.Methods and Results:A total of 1,440 patients with STEMI who underwent successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed; the data were obtained from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health. Of the patients, 963 received ticagrelor, and 477 received prasugrel. The primary study endpoint was 12-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). MACE occurred in 91 patients (6.3%) over the 1-year follow-up, and there were no differences in the incidence of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.91, P=0.438) between the 2 groups. Analysis by propensity score matching (429 pairs) did not significantly affect the results. The incidence of in-hospital major bleeding events was still comparable between the 2 groups (2.4% vs. 2.5%, odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.30-1.86, P=0.532), and there was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE (5.4% vs. 5.8%, HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.56-1.74, P=0.951) after matching. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor and prasugrel showed similar efficacy and safety profiles for treating STEMI in this Korean multicenter registry.

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.

Effect of statin treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction and left ventricular systolic dysfunction according to the level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

The effects of statins on the prognosis of patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction remain controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of statin treatment on clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with LV systolic dysfunction. A total of 5,119 AMI patients with LV ejection fraction less than 50% on the initial echocardiogram were analyzed in the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. The study population was divided into 4 groups according to the level of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and statin treatment: low hs-CRP (hs-CRP ≤ 2.0 mg/L) and high hs-CRP (hs-CRP > 2 mg/L) with or without statin therapy. We evaluated the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) including cardiac death, reinfarction, target lesion revascularization, and coronary artery bypass grafting during a 12-month period in each group. Statin therapy did not significantly prevent the MACEs in the low hs-CRP groups (with statin: 10.1% versus without statin: 12.0%, P = 0.249). In the high hs-CRP groups, however, the incidence of MACEs was significantly decreased with statin treatment (with statin: 11.3%, without statin: 20.8%, P < 0.001). These findings were consistently observed in all subgroups of the high-hs CRP group, including the subgroup with an LV ejection fraction less than 40%. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis of the high hs-CRP group, lack of statin therapy was a significant predictor of MACE incidence (odds ratio: 1.573, 95% confidence interval: 1.079-2.293, P = 0.018). The statin treatment was associated with better outcome in AMI and LV dysfunction patients with hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/dL.

Association between body mass index and three-year outcome of acute myocardial infarction.

Body mass index (BMI), as an important risk factor related to metabolic disease. However, in some studies higher BMI was emphasized as a beneficial factor in the clinical course of patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a concept known as the "BMI paradox." The purpose of this study was to investigate how clinical outcomes of patients treated for AMI differed according to BMI levels. A total of 10,566 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health (KAMIR-NIH) from May 2010 to June 2015 were divided into three BMI groups (group 1: BMI < 22 kg/m2, group 2: ≥ 22 and < 26 kg/m2, and group 3: ≥ 26 kg/m2). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) at 3 years of follow-up. At 1 year of follow-up, the incidence of MACCE in group 1 was 10.1% of that in group 3, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.27, and 6.5% in group 2, with an HR of 1.415. This tendency continued up to 3 years of follow-up. The study demonstrated that lower incidence of MACCE in the high BMI group of Asians during the 3-year follow-up period compared to the low BMI group. The results implied higher BMI could exert a positive effect on the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with AMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Clinical Outcome after Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: XIENCE Asia Small Vessel Study.

There are limited data on outcomes after implantation of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in East Asian patients with small vessel coronary lesions. A total of 1,600 patients treated with XIENCE EES (Abbott Vascular, CA, USA) were divided into the small vessel group treated with one ≤2.5 mm stent (n=119) and the non-small vessel group treated with one ≥2.75 mm stent (n=933). The primary end point was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization at 12 months. The key secondary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome (DOCO), a composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel MI, and target lesion revascularization at 12 months. The small vessel group was more often female, hypertensive, less likely to present with ST-elevation MI, and more often treated for the left circumflex artery, whereas the non-small vessel group more often had type B2/C lesions, underwent intravascular ultrasound, and received unfractionated heparin. In the propensity matched cohort, the mean stent diameter was 2.5±0.0 mm and 3.1±0.4 mm in the small and non-small vessel groups, respectively. Propensity-adjusted POCO at 12 months was 6.0% in the small vessel group and 4.3% in the non-small vessel group (p=0.558). There was no significant difference in DOCO at 12 months (small vessel group: 4.3% and non-small vessel group: 1.7%, p=0.270). Outcomes of XIENCE EES for small vessel disease were comparable to those for non-small vessel disease at 12-month clinical follow-up in real-world Korean patients.

Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefits and risks of the use of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond a 12-month period in patients receiving drug-eluting stents have not been clearly established. METHODS: In two trials, we randomly assigned a total of 2701 patients who had received drug-eluting stents and had been free of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events and major bleeding for a period of at least 12 months to receive clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction or death from cardiac causes. Data from the two trials were merged for analysis. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 19.2 months. The cumulative risk of the primary outcome at 2 years was 1.8% with dual antiplatelet therapy, as compared with 1.2% with aspirin monotherapy (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 3.36; P=0.17). The individual risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, need for repeat revascularization, major bleeding, and death from any cause did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, in the dual-therapy group as compared with the aspirin-alone group, there was a nonsignificant increase in the composite risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.99 to 3.00; P=0.051) and in the composite risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiac causes (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.99 to 3.45; P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The use of dual antiplatelet therapy for a period longer than 12 months in patients who had received drug-eluting stents was not significantly more effective than aspirin monotherapy in reducing the rate of myocardial infarction or death from cardiac causes. These findings should be confirmed or refuted through larger, randomized clinical trials with longer-term follow-up. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00484926 and NCT00590174.)

Clinical outcome of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

The clinical outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) with unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis is not fully understood. We sought to assess the outcomes of patients with acute MI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected LMCA stenosis. A total of 587 patients enrolled in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry with LMCA stenosis were analyzed. Patients with culprit LMCA had higher inhospital mortality than patients with non-culprit LMCA (16.0% versus 8.9%, P = 0.008), but had similar clinical outcomes during a 12-month follow-up. Compared to CABG, PCI using drug-eluting stents (DES) was more frequently performed with similar early and 12-month clinical outcomes. The efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents, paclitaxel-eluting stents, and zotarolimus-eluting stents were comparable at 12-month clinical follow-up. Predictors of 12-month mortality included mechanical ventilation, cardiogenic shock, age > 65 years, and ejection fraction < 40%. Patients with acute MI and culprit LMCA have higher early mortality than patients with non-culprit LMCA. PCI with DES is frequently performed and the clinical outcome is similar between the 3 types of first-generation DES.

Efficacy and Safety of Coadministered Ezetimibe-Rosuvastatin plus Telmisartan in South Korean Patients with Dyslipidemia and Hypertension: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Phase III Trial.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) is expected to improve treatment compliance. METHODS: There were 181 subjects who were randomized to three groups: ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg, ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg, and telmisartan 80 mg. The primary outcomes were change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) and percentage change in low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to baseline at week 8. RESULTS: The least-square mean (SE) in MSSBP changes between the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg group and the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg group were -25.81 (2.34) mmHg and -7.66 (2.45) mmHg. There was a significant difference between the two groups (-18.15 (2.83) mmHg, 95% CI -23.75 to -12.56, p < 0.0001). Changes in least-square mean (SE) in LDL-C between the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg group and the telmisartan 80 mg group were -63.82 (2.87)% and -2.48 (3.12)%. A significant difference was observed between the two groups (-61.34 (3.33)%, 95% CI -67.91 to -54.78, p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe-rosuvastatin plus telmisartan treatment is effective and safe when compared to either ezetimibe-rosuvastatin or telmisartan.

Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stent versus sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for de novo coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus (ESSENCE-DIABETES): results from the ESSENCE-DIABETES trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents significantly improved angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare metal stents in diabetic patients. However, a comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients has not been evaluated. Therefore we compared effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared everolimus-eluting stent (n=149) and sirolimus-eluting stent (n=151) implantation in diabetic patients. The primary end point was noninferiority of angiographic in-segment late loss at 8 months. Clinical events were also monitored for at least 12 months. Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for 8-month in-segment late loss (0.23 ± 0.27 versus 0.37 ± 0.52 mm; difference, -0.13 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.25 to -0.02; upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval, -0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority), with reductions in in-stent restenosis (0% versus 4.7%; P=0.029) and in-segment restenosis (0.9% versus 6.5%; P=0.035). However, in-stent late loss (0.11 ± 0.26 versus 0.20 ± 0.49 mm; P=0.114) was not statistically different between the 2 groups. At 12 months, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (0.7% versus 2.6%; P=0.317), death (1.3% versus 3.3%; P=0.448), and myocardial infarction (0% versus 1.3%; P=0.498) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.0% versus 5.3%; P=0.218), were also not statistically different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in reducing in-segment late loss and reduced angiographic restenosis at 8 months in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease.

Impact of total occlusion of an infarct-related artery on long-term mortality in acute non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients who underwent early percutaneous coronary intervention.

Some patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) have a total occlusive infarct-related artery. However, the long-term prognosis of these patients is uncertain, particularly for those who underwent an early invasive strategy. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical impact of total occlusion (TO) of an infarct-related artery (IRA) in these patients. A total of 2,094 patients with NSTEMI who underwent an early invasive strategy with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Korea Acute MI Registry (KAMIR) were analyzed (TO group; 665 patients, and non-TO group; 1,429 patients).In-hospital and one-year clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. The left circumflex (42.9%) and right coronary artery (31.9%) were the major IRA in the TO group, while the left anterior descending artery was more common as an IRA in the non-TO group (44.1%). In-hospital complications including death and cardiogenic shock occurred frequently in the TO group. Also, the rates of one-month and 12-month adverse cardiac outcomes were higher in the TO group. In the Cox-proportional hazard model, TO in IRA predicted 12-month all-cause death. In conclusion, NSTEMI patients with TO in IRA showed worse short- and long-term clinical outcomes compared with those of non-TO patients.

Association of the medical therapy with beta-blockers or inhibitors of renin-angiotensin system with clinical outcomes in patients with mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction.

In the era of the initial optimal interventional and medical therapy for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), a number of patients with mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (41%-49%) have been increasing. This observational study aimed to investigate the association between the medical therapy with oral beta-blockers or inhibitors of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and 2-year clinical outcomes in patients with mildly reduced EF after AMI. Among patients enrolled in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health, propensity-score matched patients who survived the initial attack and had mildly reduced EF were selected according to beta-blocker or RAS inhibitor therapy at discharge. Beta-blocker therapy at discharge was associated with lower 2-year major adverse cardiac events which was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, revascularization and re-hospitalization due to heart failure (8.7 vs 12.8/100 patient-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.93; P = .015), and no significant interaction between EF ≤ 45% and > 45% was observed (Pinteraction = 0.354). This association was mainly driven by lower myocardial infarction in patients with beta-blockers (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.26-0.95; P = .035). Inhibitors of RAS at discharge were associated with lower re-hospitalization due to heart failure (1.8 vs 3.5/100 patient-years; HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.86; P = .010) without a significant interaction between EF ≤ 45% and > 45% (Pinteraction = 0.333). In patients with mildly reduced EF after AMI, the medical therapy with beta-blockers or RAS inhibitors at discharge was associated with better 2-year clinical outcomes.

Target Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol and Secondary Prevention for Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Korean Nationwide Cohort Study.

Although lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels following acute myocardial infarction (MI) is the cornerstone of secondary prevention, the attainment of recommended LDL-C goals remains suboptimal in real-world practice. We sought to investigate recurrent adverse events in post-MI patients. From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health registry, a total of 5049 patients with both measurements of plasma LDL-C levels at index admission and at the one-year follow-up visit were identified. Patients who achieved an LDL-C reduction ≥ 50% from the index MI and an LDL-C level ≤ 70 mg/dL at follow-up were classified as target LDL-C achievers. The primary endpoint was a two-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), including cardiovascular mortality, recurrent MI, and ischemic stroke. Among the 5049 patients, 1114 (22.1%) patients achieved the target LDL-C level. During a median follow-up of 2.1 years, target LDL-C achievers showed a significantly lower incidence (2.2% vs. 3.5%, log-rank p = 0.022) and a reduced adjusted hazard of MACCE (0.63; p = 0.041). In patients with acute MI, achieving a target LDL-C level was associated with a lower incidence and a reduced hazard of recurrent clinical events. These results highlight the need to improve current practices for managing LDL-C levels in real-world settings.