Search

A 76-year-old woman underwent coronary angiography for chest pain. On the coronary angiogram, no significant coronary artery atherosclerotic stenosis was observed. Multiple coronary artery microfistulas, draining from the left anterior descending artery to the left ventricle and from the posterior descending artery of the right coronary artery to the left ventricle, were observed. Apical wall thickening and fistula flow from the left anterior descending artery were demonstrated by using transthoracic echocardiography. We describe a rare case of multiple coronary artery microfistulas from the left and right coronary artery to the left ventricle combined with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High-risk non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients' optimal timing for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is debated despite the recommendation for early invasive revascularization. This study aimed to compare outcomes of NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability undergoing very early invasive strategy (VEIS, ≤ 12 hours) versus delayed invasive strategy (DIS, >12 hours). Methods: Excluding urgent indications for PCI including initial systolic blood pressure under 90 mmHg, ventricular arrhythmia, or Killip class IV, 4,733 NSTEMI patients were recruited from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health (KAMIR-NIH). Patients were divided into low and high- global registry of acute coronary events risk score risk score (GRS) groups based on 140. Both groups were then categorized into VEIS and DIS. Clinical outcomes, including all-cause death (ACD), cardiac death (CD), recurrent MI, and cerebrovascular accident at 12 months, were evaluated. Results: Among 4,733 NSTEMI patients, 62% had low GRS, and 38% had high GRS. The proportions of VEIS and DIS were 43% vs. 57% in the low GRS group and 47% vs. 53% in the high GRS group. In the low GRS group, VEIS and DIS demonstrated similar outcomes; however, in the high GRS group, VEIS exhibited worse ACD outcomes compared to DIS (HR = 1.46, P = 0.003). The adverse effect of VEIS was consistent with propensity score matched analysis (HR = 1.34, P = 0.042). Conclusion: VEIS yielded worse outcomes than DIS in high-risk NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability in real-world practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements, distal coronary pressure (Pd) can be influenced by hydrostatic pressure changes resulting from the height difference (HD) between the coronary ostium and the location of the distal pressure sensor. Aims: We investigated the effect of aortocoronary HD on the FFR measurements in each coronary artery. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 257 patients who underwent FFR measurements and coronary computed tomography (CCTA) within a year. Using CCTA, we measured HD as the vertical distance between the coronary ostium and a matched point of the distal coronary pressure sensor identified on coronary angiography. Results: The location of the Pd sensor was higher than the coronary ostium in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) (-4.64 ± 1.15 cm) and lower than the coronary ostium in the left circumflex artery (LCX) (2.54 ± 1.05 cm) and right coronary artery (RCA) (2.03 ± 1.28 cm). The corrected FFR values by HD were higher in the LAD (0.78 ± 0.09 to 0.82 ± 0.09, P<0.01) and lower in the LCX and RCA than the original FFR values (0.87 ± 0.07 to 0.85 ± 0.08, P<0.01; 0.87 ± 0.10 to 0.86 ± 0.10, P<0.01, respectively). Using an FFR cut-off value of 0.8, the concordance rates between the FFR and corrected FFR values were 77.8%, 95.2%, and 100% in the LAD, LCX, and RCA, respectively. Conclusion: HD between the coronary ostium and the distal coronary pressure sensor may affect FFR measurements and FFR-guided treatment decisions for coronary artery disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pulse pressure (PP) is affected by arterial stiffness and is a predictor of cardiovascular events. However, value and utility of PP assessment in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain less clear. We aimed to evaluate the association between PP and cardiovascular events in surviving patients with AMI at discharge. A total of 11 944 surviving patients with AMI at discharge from a Korean nationwide registry were included. Blood pressure was checked just before discharge. Noncardiac death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) including cardiac death, AMI, and stroke after discharge were analyzed. The median follow-up duration was 368 (IQR 339, 388) days. The rate of MACEs and cardiac death was higher in groups with the lowest PP (PP < 20 mm Hg) and highest PP (PP ≥ 71 mm Hg) and lowest in the group with PP of 31-40 mm Hg. With PP of 31-40 mm Hg as reference, univariate analysis showed a U-shaped association between the risk of MACEs (PP ≤ 20 mm Hg: hazard ratio [HR] 2.3; PP ≥ 71 mm Hg: HR 2.7) or cardiac death (PP ≤ 20 mm Hg: HR 2.6; PP ≥ 71 mm Hg: HR 3.1) and PP. In multivariate analysis, the curve changed from being U-shaped to J-shaped, and HR for PP ≥ 71 mm Hg (1.2 for MACEs and 1.4 cardiac death) decreased and HR for PP < 20 (2.1 for MACEs and 2.4 for cardiac death) did not significantly decrease after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors. Our findings indicate that PP is a strong independent prognostic factor of MACEs and cardiac death in surviving patients with AMI. Low PP is a more significant independent predictor of MACEs and cardiac death than high PP in surviving patients after AMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin is a widely prescribed regimen to prevent ischemic events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A fixed-dose combination (FDC) capsule (HCP0911) has been developed to provide dosing convenience and improve adherence. We compared the antiplatelet effects of single daily dose HCP0911 with separate treatment with daily 75 mg clopidogrel plus 100 mg aspirin. This was a randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover, non-inferiority study conducted in stented patients who had been treated for at least 6 months with clopidogrel and aspirin. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to receive either daily 75 mg clopidogrel plus 100 mg aspirin treatment or HCP0911 for 2 weeks and then were crossed over to the other treatment for 2 weeks. Pharmacodynamic effects were measured with VerifyNow, light transmittance aggregometry (LTA), and thromboelastography (TEG®). The primary endpoint was P2Y12 Reaction Units (PRU) measured by VerifyNow. PRUs during treatment with HCP0911 were not inferior to those during separate treatment (202 ± 52 vs. 207 ± 60 PRU; mean difference, −5 PRU; 90% confidence interval of difference, −23 to 13 PRU; P for non-inferiority = 0.015 for predetermined limit). "BASE" and Aspirin Reaction Units by VerifyNow did not differ between the two treatments. During each treatment, there were no differences in maximal and final platelet aggregations by LTA (all P values ≥0.822) and TEG® measurements. In conclusion, in stented patients, the antiplatelet effect of a fixed-dose clopidogrel–aspirin combination, HCP0911, was not inferior to separate administration of clopidogrel and aspirin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]