Search

Background Clopidogrel monotherapy improved clinical outcomes compared with aspirin monotherapy during a chronic maintenance period in patients who underwent coronary stenting in the HOST‐EXAM (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis–Extended Antiplatelet Monotherapy) trial. However, it is uncertain whether the beneficial effect of clopidogrel over aspirin is different according to the renal function. Methods and Results We conducted a post hoc analysis of the HOST‐EXAM trial. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined as baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate

Introduction: Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-lowering treatment is beneficial for the secondary or primary prevention of high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, the prognostic implications of low LDL cholesterol levels in patients without previous ASCVD and without statin use remain elusive. Methods: From a nationwide cohort, 2,432,471 participants without previous ASCVD or statin use were included. For myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic stroke (IS), participants were followed-up from 2009 to 2018. They were stratified according to 10-year ASCVD risk (

Abstract Aims Evidence for the effectiveness of left ventricular (LV) unloading in patients who received venoaterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or non‐AMI induced cardiogenic shock (CS) is limited. The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of LV unloading in AMI‐induced and non‐AMI‐induced CS. Methods and results This is a single‐centre retrospective observational study of patients with CS undergoing VA‐ECMO from January 2011 to March 2019. Patients were classified as AMI‐induced and non‐AMI‐induced CS. The association of LV unloading with 90‐day mortality in both groups was analysed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. Results Of the 128 CS patients, 71 (55.5%) patients received VA‐ECMO due to AMI‐induced CS, and the remaining 57 (44.5%) received VA‐ECMO due to non‐AMI‐induced CS. The modality of LV unloading was predominantly with IABP (94.5%). In the AMI‐induced CS group, LV unloading did not reduce 90‐day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.96, 95% confidence interval 0.90–4.27, P = 0.089). However, in the non‐AMI‐induced CS group, LV unloading combined with VA‐ECMO significantly reduced 90‐day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.14–0.96, P = 0.041; P for interaction = 0.029) as compared with those who received VA‐ECMO alone. Conclusions LV unloading with VA‐ECMO may reduce 90‐day mortality compared with VA‐ECMO alone in patients with non‐AMI‐induced CS, but not in AMI‐induced CS.

Background Following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), optical coherence tomography provides prognosis information. The pullback pressure gradient is a novel index that discriminates focal from diffuse coronary artery disease based on fractional flow reserve pullbacks. We sought to investigate the association between coronary artery disease patterns, defined by coronary physiology, and optical coherence tomography after stent implantation in stable patients undergoing PCI. Methods and Results This multicenter, prospective, single‐arm study was conducted in 5 countries (NCT03782688). Subjects underwent motorized fractional flow reserve pullbacks evaluation followed by optical coherence tomography‐guided PCI. Post‐PCI optical coherence tomography minimum stent area, stent expansion, and the presence of suboptimal findings such as incomplete stent apposition, stent edge dissection, and irregular tissue protrusion were compared between patients with focal versus diffuse disease. Overall, 102 patients (105 vessels) were included. Fractional flow reserve before PCI was 0.65±0.14, pullback pressure gradient was 0.66±0.14, and post‐PCI fractional flow reserve was 0.88±0.06. The mean minimum stent area was 5.69±1.99 mm2 and was significantly larger in vessels with focal disease (6.18±2.12 mm2 versus 5.19±1.72 mm2, P=0.01). After PCI, incomplete stent apposition, stent edge dissection, and irregular tissue protrusion were observed in 27.6%, 10.5%, and 51.4% of the cases, respectively. Vessels with focal disease at baseline had a lower prevalence of incomplete stent apposition (11.3% versus 44.2%, P=0.002) and more irregular tissue protrusion (69.8% versus 32.7%, P

ABSTRACT: Background: Hypertension and dyslipidemia significantly contribute to cardiovascular disease development. Their coexistence poses challenges in managing multiple medications, influencing treatment adherence. Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combined treatment approach using a fixed-dose combination therapy. Methods: This multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, Phase IV trial was named Telmisartan/Amlodipine/Rosuvastatin from Samjin Pharmaceuticals and evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination treatment in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia. They were randomly assigned to 2 fixed-dose combination therapy groups, telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/rosuvastatin 10 mg (TEL/ALD/RSV) or amlodipine 5 mg/atorvastatin 10 mg (ALD/ATV) after washout/run-in period. The primary outcomes were the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure and the percentage change of LDL-C after 8 weeks of medical treatment. Adverse drug reactions and events were assessed. Results: Of a total of 304 patients who underwent screening, 252 were randomized to the TEL/ALD/RSV group (125 patients) and the ALD/ATV group (127 patients). The mean (SD) ages of the TEL/ALD/RSV group and the ALD/ATV group were 67.4 (11.3) and 68.2 (10.6) years, respectively (P = 0.563). The least-squares mean (SE) in mean sitting systolic blood pressure changes between the 2 groups were –16.27 (0.93) mm Hg in the TEL/ALD/RSV group, –6.85 (0.92) mm Hg in the ALD/ATV group (LSM difference = –9.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, –11.99 to –6.84; P < .001). For LDL-C level changes, a significant difference was noted between the 2 groups: –50.03% (1.18%) in the TEL/ALD/RSV group, –39.60% (1.17%) in the ALD/ATV group (LSM difference = –10.43%; 95% CI, –13.70 to –7.16; P < .001). No severe adverse events were observed. Conclusions: TEL/ALD/RSV proved to be more efficient than ALD/ATV in lowering blood pressure and reducing LDL-C levels among patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia, with no notable safety concerns. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2024; XX:XXX–XXX). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03860220.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of each third-generation drug-eluting stent with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology remain unclear. We investigated the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention using the Coroflex ISAR polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or Orsiro biodegradable polymer SES. METHODS: The HOST-IDEA trial (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis-Coronary Intervention With Next-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms and Abbreviated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy), initially designed with a 2×2 factorial approach, sought to randomize patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention based on dual antiplatelet therapy duration (3 versus 12 months) and stent type (Coroflex ISAR versus Orsiro). Despite randomizing 2013 patients for dual antiplatelet therapy duration, the stent arm transitioned to a registry format during the trial. Among these, 328 individuals (16.3%) were randomized for Coroflex ISAR or Orsiro SES, while 1685 (83.7%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention without stent-type randomization. In this study, the Coroflex ISAR (n=559) and Orsiro groups (n=1449) were matched using a propensity score. The prespecified primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months. RESULTS: The baseline patient and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the Coroflex ISAR and Orsiro groups after propensity score matching (n=559, each group). The Coroflex ISAR group was significantly associated with a higher rate of target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, compared with the Orsiro group (3.4% versus 1.1%; hazard ratio, 3.21 [95% CI, 1.28-8.05]; P=0.01). A higher risk of target lesion failure in the Coroflex ISAR group was consistently observed across various subgroups. The rates of any bleeding (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.51-1.40]; P=0.52) and major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.61-4.08]; P=0.34) were comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched analysis of the stent arm registry from the HOST-IDEA trial, the Orsiro SES was associated with significantly better outcomes in terms of 1-year target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, than the Coroflex ISAR SES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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