Search

Background and Objectives: The clinical benefits of complete revascularization (CR) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients are unclear. Moreover, the benefit of CR is unknown in AMI with diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. We sought to compare the prognosis of CR and incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with AMI and multivessel disease, according to the presence of DM., Methods: A total of 2,150 AMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were analyzed. CR was defined based on the angiographic image. The primary endpoint of this study was the patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) defined as a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization within 3 years., Results: Overall, 3-year POCO was significantly lower in patients receiving angiographic CR (985 patients, 45.8%) compared with IR (1,165 patients, 54.2%). When divided into subgroups according to the presence of DM, CR reduced 3-year clinical outcomes in the non-DM group but not in the DM group (POCO: 11.7% vs. 23.2%, p<0.001, any revascularization: 7.2% vs. 10.8%, p=0.024 in the non-DM group, POCO: 24.3% vs. 27.8%, p=0.295, any revascularization: 13.3% vs. 11.3%, p=0.448 in the DM group, for CR vs. IR). Multivariate analysis showed that CR significantly reduced 3-year POCO (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.75) only in the non-DM group., Conclusions: In AMI patients with multivessel disease, CR may have less clinical benefit in DM patients than in non-DM patients., Competing Interests: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024. The Korean Society of Cardiology.)

Background and Objectives: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS)., Methods: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year., Results: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48-2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271)., Conclusions: Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients., Competing Interests: Dr. Hyo-Soo Kim has received research grants or speaker's fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boston Scientific, Terumo, Biotronik, Dio, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Edwards Life Science, Amgen, and Behringer Ingelheim, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Kyung Woo Park reports speaker's fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022. The Korean Society of Cardiology.)

Along with the development of innovative stent designs, preclinical trials in animal models are essential. Many animal models have been used and appear to yield comparable results to clinical trials despite substantial criticisms about their validity. Among the animal models, porcine coronary artery models have been the standard models for the preclinical evaluation of endovascular devices. However, rapid growth rate, high body weight potential, and the propensity to develop granulomatous inflammatory reactions are major limitations of the porcine coronary artery model. Compared with porcine coronary artery models, the comparative rabbit iliac artery model has the advantages of being small and easy to handle and relatively inexpensive. Furthermore, the rabbit model has been known to reliably reflect human restenosis histopathologically and have major advantages such as pairwise comparison, which makes each animal serve as its own control subject, therefore, maximizing its statistical power for comparative testing. However, despite the widespread use of this model, a systematic description of the procedure and harvest protocols has never been published. This article describes the surgical procedure, stent implantation procedure, method for tissue harvesting, and how measurements are performed. Although the results of animal models may not perfectly extrapolate to humans, the comparative rabbit iliac artery model may be a useful tool for assessing and comparing the efficacy of new coronary stents with conventional stent systems. This thorough description of the techniques required for vascular access, stent implantation, tissue preparation, and measurement, should aid investigators wishing to begin using the comparative rabbit iliac artery model.