Search

Summary: 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.

BackgroundOptimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who have undergone drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is not clearly established. This study sought to impact of DAPT duration on real-world clinical outcome in patients with or without DM.MethodsUsing a nationwide cohort database, we investigate the association between DAPT duration and clinical outcome between 1 and 3 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Primary outcome was all-cause death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and composite bleeding events. After weighting, 90,100 DES-treated patients were included; 29,544 patients with DM and 60,556 without DM; 31,233 patients with standard DAPT (6–12 months) and 58,867 with prolonged DAPT (12–24 months).ResultsThe incidence of all-cause death was significantly lower in patients with prolonged DAPT [8.3% vs. 10.5% in those with standard DAPT, hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72–0.84] in diabetic patients and non-diabetic patients (4.5% vs. 5.0% in those with standard DAPT, HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83–0.96). The incidence of composite bleeding events was 5.7% vs. 5.4%, respectively, (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96–1.18) in diabetic patients and 5.6% vs. 5.0%, respectively, in non-diabetic patients (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05–1.21). There was a significant interaction between the presence of DM and DAPT duration for all-cause death (p for interaction, pint = 0.01) that further favored prolonged DAPT in diabetic patients. However, there was no significant interaction between the presence of DM and DAPT duration for composite bleeding events (pint = 0.38).ConclusionsThis study showed that prolonged rather than standard DAPT might be clinically beneficial in diabetic patients with DES implantation.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04715594).

BackgroundIt is unclear whether beta-blocker treatment is advantageous in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We evaluated the clinical impact of long-term beta-blocker maintenance in patients with stable CAD after PCI with drug-eluting stent (DES).MethodsFrom a nationwide cohort database, we identified the stable CAD patients without current or prior history of myocardial infarction or heart failure who underwent DES implantation. An intention-to-treat principle was used to analyze the impact of beta-blocker treatment on long-term outcomes of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) composed of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and hospitalization with heart failure.ResultsAfter stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, a total of 78,380 patients with stable CAD was enrolled; 45,746 patients with and 32,634 without beta-blocker treatment. At 5 years after PCI with a 6-month quarantine period, the adjusted incidence of MACE was significantly higher in patients treated with beta-blockers [10.0 vs. 9.1%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% CI 1.06–1.16, p < 0.001] in an intention-to-treat analysis. There was no significant difference in all-cause death between patients treated with and without beta-blockers (8.1 vs. 8.2%; HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94–1.04, p = 0.62). Statistical analysis with a time-varying Cox regression and rank-preserving structure failure time model revealed similar results to the intention-to-treat analysis.ConclusionsAmong patients with stable CAD undergoing DES implantation, long-term maintenance with beta-blocker treatment might not be associated with clinical outcome improvement.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04715594).

BackgroundDespite the theoretical benefits of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES), clinical benefits of BP-DES over durable polymer DES (DP-DES) have not been clearly demonstrated. Using data from a large-volume nationwide cohort, we compared long-term clinical outcomes between BP-DES- and DP-DES-treated patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort study that enrolled all patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation DES between 2010 and 2016 in Korea was conducted by using the National Health Insurance Service database. The outcomes of interest were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction (MI).ResultsA total of 127,731 patients treated with new-generation DES with thin struts (

Background Although antiplatelet therapy (APT) has been recommended to balance ischemic‐bleeding risks, it has been left to an individualized decision‐making based on physicians' perspectives before non‐cardiac surgery. The study aimed to assess the advantages of a consensus among physicians, surgeons, and anesthesiologists on continuation and regimen of preoperative APT in patients with coronary drug‐eluting stents. Methods and Results A total of 3582 adult patients undergoing non‐cardiac surgery after percutaneous coronary intervention with second‐generation stents was retrospectively included from a multicenter cohort. Physicians determined whether APT should be continued or discontinued for a recommended period before non‐cardiac surgery. There were 3103 patients who complied with a consensus decision. Arbitrary APT, not based on a consensus decision, was associated with urgent surgery, high bleeding risk of surgery, female sex, and dual APT at the time of preoperative evaluation. Arbitrary APT independently increased the net clinical adverse event (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.98–3.11), major adverse cardiac event (ORadj, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.31–7.34), and major bleeding (ORadj, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.45–3.76) risks. The association was consistently noted, irrespective of the surgical risks, recommendations, and practice on discontinuation of APT. Conclusions Most patients were treated in agreement with a consensus decision about preoperative APT based on a referral system among physicians, surgeons, and anesthesiologists. The risk of perioperative adverse events increased if complying with a consensus decision was failed. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03908463.

Background Continuing antiplatelet therapy (APT) has been generally recommended during noncardiac surgery, but it is uncertain if preoperative discontinuation of APT has been avoided or harmful in patients with second‐generation drug‐eluting coronary stents. Methods and Results Patients undergoing noncardiac surgery after second‐generation drug‐eluting coronary stent implantation were assessed in a multicenter cohort in Korea. Net adverse clinical events within 30 days postoperatively, defined as all‐cause death, major adverse cardiac events, and major bleeding, were evaluated. Of 3582 eligible patients, 49% patients discontinued APT during noncardiac surgery. The incidence of net adverse clinical events was comparable between patients with continuation versus discontinuation (4.1% versus 3.4%; P=0.257) of APT during noncardiac surgery. Perioperative discontinuation of APT did not impact on net adverse clinical events (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.69–1.44; P=0.995). In subgroup analysis, patients undergoing intra‐abdominal surgery were exposed to less risk of major bleeding by discontinuing APT (adjusted HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08–0.91; P=0.035). Prolonged discontinuation of APT for ≥9 days was associated with higher risk of a major adverse cardiac event compared with continuing APT (adjusted HR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.36–8.38; P=0.009). Conclusions APT was discontinued preoperatively in almost half of patients with second‐generation drug‐eluting coronary stents. Our explorative analysis showed that there was no significant impact of discontinuing APT on the risk of perioperative adverse events except that discontinuing APT may be associated with decreased hemorrhagic risk in patients undergoing intra‐abdominal surgery. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03908463.

Purpose: To evaluate predictors of severe or moderate coronary artery disease (CAD) in individuals with zero or very low (<10) coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores. Materials and Methods: The 1175 asymptomatic persons with zero or very low (<10) CAC scores were analyzed for CAD stenosis using coronary computed tomography angiography. Moderate and severe CADs were defined as having more than 50% and more than 70% stenosis in any of the major coronary arteries, respectively. Age, gender, body mass index, hypertension, type II diabetes, dyslipidemia, lipid profile, creatinine, and smoking status were evaluated as predictors for moderate and severe CAD. Results: In the study population, moderate and severe CADs were found in 7.5% and 3.3%, respectively. Among evaluated risk factors, age [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.07, p<0.001], current smoking status (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.82-5.34, p<0.001), and CAC 1-9 (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.08-3.00, p=0.024) were significantly associated with moderate CAD. Meanwhile, age (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08, p=0.003), low high density lipoprotein (HDL) (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99, p=0.003), and current smoking status (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.14-5.30, p=0.022) were found to be significantly associated with severe CAD. Improvement of discrimination power for predicting severe CAD was observed when smoking and HDL cholesterol were serially added into the age model. Conclusion: Smoking showed significant correlations with moderate or severe CAD, and low HDL cholesterol also proved to be a predictor of severe CAD in asymptomatic individuals with extremely low CAC scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the ability of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) to predict the need of coronary revascularization in symptomatic patients with stable angina who were referred to a cardiac catheterization laboratory for coronary revascularization. Materials and Methods: Pre-angiography CCTA findings were analyzed in 1846 consecutive symptomatic patients with stable angina, who were referred to a cardiac catheterization laboratory at six hospitals and were potential candidates for coronary revascularization between July 2011 and December 2013. The number of patients requiring revascularization was determined based on the severity of coronary stenosis as assessed by CCTA. This was compared to the actual number of revascularization procedures performed in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Results: Based on CCTA findings, coronary revascularization was indicated in 877 (48%) and not indicated in 969 (52%) patients. Of the 877 patients indicated for revascularization by CCTA, only 600 (68%) underwent the procedure, whereas 285 (29%) of the 969 patients not indicated for revascularization, as assessed by CCTA, underwent the procedure. When the coronary arteries were divided into 15 segments using the American Heart Association coronary tree model, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CCTA for therapeutic decision making on a per-segment analysis were 42%, 96%, 40%, and 96%, respectively. Conclusion: CCTA-based assessment of coronary stenosis severity does not sufficiently differentiate between coronary segments requiring revascularization versus those not requiring revascularization. Conventional coronary angiography should be considered to determine the need of revascularization in symptomatic patients with stable angina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of statin treatment on strut coverage after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. Materials and Methods: In this study, 60 patients were randomly assigned to undergo sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or biolimus-eluting stent (BES) implantation, after which patients were randomly treated with pitavastatin 2 mg or pravastatin 20 mg for 6 months. The degree of strut coverage was assessed by 6-month follow-up optical coherence tomography, which was performed in 52 DES-implanted patients. Results: The percentages of uncovered struts were 19.4±14.7% in pitavastatin-treated patients (n=25) and 19.1±15.2% in pravastatin-treated patients (n=27; p=0.927). A lower percentage of uncovered struts was significantly correlated with a lower follow-up low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level (r=0.486; p=0.009) and a greater decline of the LDL cholesterol level (r=-0.456; p=0.015) in SES-implanted patients, but not in BES-implanted patients. In SES-implanted patients, the percentage of uncovered struts was significantly lower among those with LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL after 6 months of follow-up (p=0.025), but no significant difference in this variable according to the follow-up LDL cholesterol level was noted among BES-implanted patients (p=0.971). Conclusion: Lower follow-up LDL cholesterol levels, especially those less than 70 mg/dL, might have a protective effect against delayed strut coverage after DES implantation. This vascular healing effect of lower LDL cholesterol levels could differ according to the DES type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]