Clinical Value of Single-Projection Angiography-Derived FFR in Noninfarct-Related Artery.

BACKGROUND: The Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (µFR) is an emerging technique that requires only 1 projection of coronary angiography with similar accuracy to quantitative flow ratio (QFR). However, it has not been validated for the evaluation of noninfarct-related artery (non-IRA) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) settings. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of µFR and the safety of deferring non-IRA lesions with µFR >0.80 in the setting of AMI. METHODS: µFR and QFR were analyzed for non-IRA lesions of patients with AMI enrolled in the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infarction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction), consisting of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention groups. The diagnostic accuracy of µFR was compared with QFR and FFR. Patients were classified by the non-IRA µFR value of 0.80 as a cutoff value. The primary outcome was a vessel-oriented composite outcome, a composite of cardiac death, non-IRA-related myocardial infarction, and non-IRA-related repeat revascularization. RESULTS: µFR and QFR analyses were feasible in 443 patients (552 lesions). µFR showed acceptable correlation with FFR (R=0.777; P<0.001), comparable C-index with QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80 (µFR versus QFR: 0.926 versus 0.961, P=0.070), and shorter total analysis time (mean, 32.7 versus 186.9 s; P<0.001). Non-IRA with µFR >0.80 and deferred percutaneous coronary intervention had a significantly lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than non-IRA with performed percutaneous coronary intervention (3.4% versus 10.5%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14-0.99]; P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel AMI, µFR of non-IRA showed acceptable diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80. Deferred non-IRA with µFR >0.80 showed a lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than revascularized non-IRA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

Different association of atherogenic index of plasma with the risk of high platelet reactivity according to the presentation of acute myocardial infarction.

This study evaluated the association of atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) with platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes according to acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The composite of 3-year adverse outcomes of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident was evaluated in 10,735 patients after successful percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. AIP was defined as the base 10 logarithm of the ratio of triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration. High platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as ≥ 252 P2Y12 reactivity unit. An increase of AIP (per-0.1 unit) was related to the decreased risk of HPR [odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-0.99; P = 0.001] in non-AMI patients, not in AMI patients (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-1.01; P = 0.138). The HPR was associated with the increased risk of composite outcomes in both non-AMI and AMI patients (all-P < 0.05). AIP levels were not independently associated with the risk of composite outcomes in both patients with non-AMI and AMI. In conclusion, an inverse association between AIP and the risk of HPR was observed in patients with non-AMI. This suggests that the association between plasma atherogenicity and platelet reactivity may play a substantial role in the development of AMI.Trial registration: NCT04734028.

Prognostic Impact of CYP2C19 Genotypes on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Older Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Carriers of CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles have increased adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention, but limited data are available for older patients. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of CYP2C19 genotypes on clinical outcomes in older patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study included 1201 older patients (aged ≥75 years) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and received clopidogrel-based dual antiplatelet therapy in South Korea. Patients were grouped on the basis of CYP2C19 genotypes. The primary outcome was 3-year major adverse cardiac events, defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. Older patients were grouped into 3 groups: normal metabolizer (36.6%), intermediate metabolizer (48.1%), and poor metabolizer (15.2%). The occurrence of the primary outcome was significantly different among the groups (3.1, 7.0, and 6.2% in the normal metabolizer, intermediate metabolizer, and poor metabolizer groups, respectively; P=0.02). The incidence rate of all-cause death at 3 years was greater in the intermediate metabolizer and poor metabolizer groups (8.1% and 9.2%, respectively) compared with that in the normal metabolizer group (3.5%, P=0.03) without significant differences in major bleeding. In the multivariable analysis, the intermediate metabolizer and poor metabolizer groups were independent predictors of 3-year clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In older patients, the presence of any CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele was found to be predictive of a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events within 3 years following percutaneous coronary intervention. This finding suggests a need for further investigation into an optimal antiplatelet strategy for older patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04734028.

Association of Age- and Body Mass Index-Stratified High On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity With Coronary Intervention Outcomes in East Asian Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although age and body mass index (BMI) significantly affect platelet reactivity units and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention, there are limited data on the relationship between high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) and clinical outcomes on age and BMI differences. Thus, we investigated the association of HPR with clinical outcomes according to age and BMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study analyzed 11 714 patients who underwent platelet function tests after percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), whereas the secondary end point was major bleeding. HPR was defined as platelet reactivity units ≥252. Patients were categorized by age (<67 years of age or ≥67 years of age) and BMI (≤22.6 kg/m2 or >22.6 kg/m2). Patients <67 years of age with HPR had increases in both MACCEs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.436 [95% CI, 1.106-1.867]; P=0.007) and major bleeding (adjusted HR, 1.584 [95% CI, 1.095-2.290]; P=0.015) compared with the those with non-HPR, respectively. In patients ≥67 years of age with HPR, there were no differences in MACCEs, but there was a decrease in major bleeding (adjusted HR, 0.721 [95% CI, 0.542-0.959]; P=0.024). Meanwhile, patients with HPR with BMI >22.6 kg/m2 had increases in MACCEs (adjusted HR, 1.387 [95% CI, 1.140-1.688]; P=0.001). No differences were shown in major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: HPR was linked to an increase in MACCEs or a decrease in major bleeding in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention, depending on age and BMI. This study is the first to observe that clinical outcomes in patients with HPR after percutaneous coronary intervention may vary based on age and BMI. Because the study is observational, the results should be viewed as hypothesis generating and emphasize the need for randomized clinical trials.

The Role of Index of Microcirculatory Resistance in Left Anterior Descending Artery ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: Our aim was to assess the relationship of the index of microvascular resistance (IMR) in left anterior descending (LAD) artery involved STEMI patients. Methods: Data of 316 STEMI patients who had undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were collected from three cardiovascular centers from 2005 to 2015. In total, 246 patients with LAD STEMI were enrolled for IMR evaluation. Patients were divided into two groups respective of the cut-off IMR value of 30. All-cause mortality, left ventricular function, improvement of systolic function, and cardiac biomarkers were analyzed and compared. Results: A total of 246 patients were enrolled. The number of patients in the IMR above 30 group was 93 and below 30 was 153. The mean ages for each group were 57.91 ± 11.99 and 54 ± 10.63, respectively. The peak creatinine kinase (CK) (3936.85 ± 2827.32 IU/L vs. 2218.08 ± 2310.41 IU/L, p < 0.001) and CKmb (336.15 ± 195.08 mg/mL vs. 231.53 ± 179.53 mg/mL, p < 0.001) levels were higher for an IMR above the 30 group. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (44.57 ± 6.685% vs. 47.35 ± 8.17%, p = 0.006) and improvement of LVEF (2.81 ± 7.135% vs. 5.88 ± 7.65%, p = 0.004) was lower in the IMR above 30 group. All-cause mortality (7.5% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.012) was higher in the IMR above 30 group, and a Cox regression analysis showed that an IMR above 30 was a poor prognostic factor regarding all-cause mortality (HR: 5.151, 95% CI 1.062-24.987, p = 0.042) even after adjusting for classical clinical risk factors. Conclusions: An elevated IMR value represented larger infarct size, more severe LV dysfunction, and higher mortality in LAD STEMI patients after successful PCI.

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs). METHODS: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). RESULTS: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03068494.

Prognostic Implication of Platelet Reactivity According to Procedural Complexity After PCI: Subanalysis of PTRG-DES Consortium.

Background: Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (C-PCI) and high platelet reactivity (HPR) have been proposed as representative risk factors for the high ischemic phenotype. Uncertainty remains regarding the relative prognostic importance of these factors. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the prognostic implication of HPR according to procedural complexity. Methods: Patients treated with drug-eluting stent implantation (PTRG-PFT cohort; N = 11,714) were classified according to procedural complexity. HPR criteria were determined using VerifyNow (≥252 P2Y12 reaction units). The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or stroke) and major bleeding were assessed for up to 3 years. Results: C-PCI was performed in 3,152 patients (26.9%). C-PCI significantly increased the risk of MACCE (HRadjusted: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.01-1.44; P = 0.035), driven by a higher rate of all-cause death (HRadjusted: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.15-1.83; P = 0.002), although it did not increase the risk of major bleeding. Irrespective of procedural complexity, the HPR phenotype was significantly associated with MACCE (Pinteraction = 0.731) and all-cause mortality (Pinteraction = 0.978), in which the prognostic implication appeared prominent within 1 year. The HPR phenotype did not show a significant interaction with any type of C-PCI. In addition, the number of complexity features per procedure did not proportionally increase the risk of MACCE. Conclusions: C-PCI was significantly associated with 3-year risk of MACCE and all-cause death. The HPR phenotype appears to have a similar prognostic implication irrespective of the type and extent of procedural complexity. (Platelet Function and Genotype-Related Long-Term Prognosis in DES-Treated Patients [PTRG-DES]; NCT04734028).

Prognostic Implications of Quantitative Flow Ratio and Plaque Characteristics in Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Treatment Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a method for evaluating fractional flow reserve without the use of an invasive coronary pressure wire or pharmacological hyperemic agent. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic implications of QFR and plaque characteristics in patients who underwent intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided treatment for intermediate lesions. METHODS: Among the IVUS-guided strategy group in the FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis) trial, vessels suitable for QFR analysis were included in this study. High-risk features were defined as low QFR (≤0.90), quantitative high-risk plaque characteristics (qn-HRPCs) (minimal lumen area ≤3.5 mm2, or plaque burden ≥70%), and qualitative high-risk plaque characteristics (ql-HRPCs) (attenuated plaque, positive remodeling, or plaque rupture) assessed using IVUS. The primary clinical endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 415 (46.1%) vessels could be analyzable for QFR. The numbers of qn-HRPCs and ql-HRPCs increased with decreasing QFR. Among deferred vessels, those with 3 high-risk features exhibits a significantly higher risk of TVF compared with those with ≤2 high-risk features (12.0% vs 2.7%; HR: 4.54; 95% CI: 1.02-20.29). CONCLUSIONS: Among the IVUS-guided deferred group, vessels with qn-HRPC and ql-HRPC with low QFR (≤0.90) exhibited a significantly higher risk for TVF compared with those with ≤2 features. Integrative assessment of angiography-derived fractional flow reserve and anatomical and morphological plaque characteristics is recommended to improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing IVUS-guided deferred treatment.

Optimal antithrombotic strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation: Design and rationale of the randomized ADAPT AF-DES trial.

BACKGROUND: Both anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies are recommended after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although contemporary guidelines recommend discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy 1 year after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation due to excessive bleeding risk, supporting randomized trials are still lacking. METHODS: The ADAPT AF-DES trial is a multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial, enrolling 960 patients with AF with a CHA2DS2-VASc score > 1, who underwent PCI with DES implantation at least 12 months before enrollment. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to receive either non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) monotherapy or NOAC plus clopidogrel combination therapy. The primary outcome is net adverse clinical event (NACE) at 1 year after randomization, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, systemic embolism, and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria. We hypothesize that NOAC monotherapy would be non-inferior to NOAC plus clopidogrel combination therapy for NACE in patients with AF beyond 12 months after DES implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The ADAPT AF-DES trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOAC monotherapy versus NOAC plus clopidogrel combination therapy in patients with AF beyond 12 months after PCI with DES implantation. The ADAPT AF-DES trial will provide robust evidence for an optimal antithrombotic strategy in patients with AF after DES implantation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT04250116.

Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy of Telmisartan/Amlodipine/Rosuvastatin in Patients with Dyslipidemia and Hypertension: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Treatment for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Prespecified Analysis of the FRAME-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Complete revascularization by non-infarct-related artery (IRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction is standard practice to improve patient prognosis. However, it is unclear whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided or angiography-guided treatment strategy for non-IRA PCI would be more cost-effective. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis of the FRAME-AMI randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated to either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions between August 19, 2016, and December 24, 2020. Patients were aged 19 years or older, had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI and underwent successful primary or urgent PCI, and had at least 1 non-IRA lesion (diameter stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery or major side branch with a vessel diameter of ≥2.0 mm). Data analysis was performed on August 27, 2023. Intervention: Fractional flow reserve-guided vs angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The model simulated death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 4.5% per year. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of FFR-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. State-transition Markov models were applied to the Korean, US, and European health care systems using medical cost (presented in US dollars), utilities data, and transition probabilities from meta-analysis of previous trials. Results: The FRAME-AMI trial randomized 562 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (11.4) years. Most patients were men (474 [84.3%]). Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI increased QALYs by 0.06 compared with angiography-guided PCI. The total cumulative cost per patient was estimated as $1208 less for FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI. The ICER was -$19 484 and the INB was $3378, indicating that FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results and the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness in FFR-guided PCI was 97%. When transition probabilities from the pairwise meta-analysis of the FLOWER-MI and FRAME-AMI trials were used, FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI in the Korean, US, and European health care systems, with an INB of $3910, $8557, and $2210, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness with FFR-guided PCI was 85%, 82%, and 31% for the Korean, US, and European health care systems, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that FFR-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions saved medical costs and increased quality of life better than angiography-guided PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI should be considered in determining the treatment strategy for non-IRA stenoses in these patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02715518.

Physiology- or Imaging-Guided Strategies for Intermediate Coronary Stenosis.

Importance: Treatment strategies for intermediate coronary lesions guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) have shown comparable outcomes. Identifying low-risk deferred vessels to ensure the safe deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and high-risk revascularized vessels that necessitate thorough follow-up can help determine optimal treatment strategies. Objectives: To investigate outcomes according to treatment types and FFR and IVUS parameters after FFR- or IVUS-guided treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with intermediate coronary stenosis from the Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial, an investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial that assigned patients into an IVUS-guided strategy (which recommended PCI for minimum lumen area [MLA] ≤3 mm2 or 3 mm2 to 4 mm2 with plaque burden [PB] ≥70%) or an FFR-guided strategy (which recommended PCI for FFR ≤0.80). Data were analyzed from November to December 2022. Exposures: FFR or IVUS parameters within the deferred and revascularized vessels. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and revascularization at 2 years. Results: A total of 1619 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.6] years; 1137 [70.2%] male) with 1753 vessels were included in analysis. In 950 vessels for which revascularization was deferred, incidence of TVF was comparable between IVUS and FFR groups (3.8% vs 4.1%; P = .72). Vessels with FFR greater than 0.92 in the FFR group and MLA greater than 4.5 mm2 or PB of 58% or less in the IVUS group were identified as low-risk deferred vessels, with a decreased risk of TVF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.09-0.71]; P = .009). In 803 revascularized vessels, the incidence of TVF was comparable between IVUS and FFR groups (3.6% vs 3.7%; P = .95), which was similar in the revascularized vessels undergoing PCI optimization (4.2% vs 2.5%; P = .31). Vessels with post-PCI FFR of 0.80 or less in the FFR group or minimum stent area of 6.0 mm2 or less or with PB at stent edge greater than 58% in the IVUS group had an increased risk for TVF (HR, 7.20 [95% CI, 3.20-16.21]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with intermediate coronary stenosis, FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies showed comparable outcomes in both deferred and revascularized vessels. Binary FFR and IVUS parameters could further define low-risk deferred vessels and high-risk revascularized vessels.

High platelet reactivity strongly predicts early stent thrombosis in patients with drug-eluting stent implantation.

Stent thrombosis (ST) is a fatal complication after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The association between P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) level and stent thrombosis occurrence remains unclear. Based on the multicenter, observational PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term proGnosis in DES-treated patients) registry of patients with drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation, a total of 11,714 patients with PRU values were analyzed. We sought to identify the predictors of early stent thrombosis (EST) and compared the primary outcome, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization, between EST and non-EST groups. EST, defined as definite ST within 1 month after index PCI, occurred in 51 patients. PRU values were significantly higher in the EST group (263.5 ± 70.8 vs. 217.5 ± 78.7, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, PRU ≥ 252 (OR, 5.10; 95% CI 1.58-16.46; p = 0.006) and aspirin reaction unit ≥ 414 (OR 4.85; 95% CI 1.07-21.97; p = 0.040) were independent predictors of EST. The cumulative incidence of primary composite outcome at one year was significantly higher in the EST group (38.2% vs. 3.9%, Log-rank p < 0.001). In patients treated with clopidogrel after successful DES implantation, EST was associated with higher platelet reactivities, and a greater risk of cardiovascular events.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028.

Prognostic Implication of Platelet Reactivity According to Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Status in Patients Treated With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Analysis of the PTRG-DES Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often exhibit reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the impact of LV dysfunction status in conjunction with platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes has not been previously investigated. METHODS: From the multicenter PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term prognosis in DES-treated patients) consortium, the patients were classified as preserved-EF (PEF: LVEF ≥ 50%) and reduced-EF (REF: LVEF< 5 0%) group by echocardiography. Platelet reactivity was measured using VerifyNow P2Y12 assay and high platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as PRU ≥ 252. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at 5 years after PCI. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3-5. RESULTS: A total of 13,160 patients from PTRG-DES, 9,319 (79.6%) patients with the results of both PRU and LVEF were analyzed. The incidence of MACCE and major bleeding was higher in REF group as compared with PEF group (MACCEs: hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-2.55; major bleeding: HR 1.78, P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.39-2.78). The highest rate of MACCEs was found in patients with REF and HPR, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (HR 3.14 in REF(+)/HPR(+) vs. PEF(+)/HPR(-) group, P < 0.01, 95% CI 2.51-3.91). The frequency of major bleeding was not associated with the HPR in either group. CONCLUSION: LV dysfunction was associated with an increased incidence of MACCEs and major bleeding in patients who underwent PCI. The HPR status further exhibited significant increase of MACCEs in patients with LV dysfunction in a large, real-world registry. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028.

Angiographic Severity of the Nonculprit Lesion and the Efficacy of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Complete Revascularization in Patients With AMI: FRAME-AMI Substudy.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for noninfarct-related 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 FFR- and 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 angiography-guided 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. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

Clinical Outcomes of Deferred Lesions by IVUS Versus FFR-Guided Treatment Decision.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the safety of deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention based on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) findings. The current study sought to compare the prognosis between deferred lesions based on IVUS and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided treatment decision. METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR randomized trial (Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) that compared 2-year clinical outcomes between IVUS- and FFR-guided treatment decision on intermediate coronary artery lesions using predefined criteria. In both IVUS and FFR groups, vessels were classified into deferred or revascularized vessels, and patients were classified as those with or without deferred lesions. Vessel-oriented composite outcomes (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) in deferred vessels and patient-oriented composite outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularization) in patients with deferred lesions were compared between the IVUS and FFR groups. RESULTS: A total of 1682 patients and 1820 vessels were analyzed, of which 922 patients and 989 vessels were deferred. At 2 years, there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of vessel-oriented composite outcomes in deferred vessels between IVUS (n=375) and FFR (n=614) groups (3.8% versus 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.47-1.75]; P=0.77). The risk of vessel-oriented composite outcomes was comparable between deferred and revascularized vessels following treatment decision by IVUS (3.8% versus 3.5%; hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.54-2.19]; P=0.81) and FFR (4.1% versus 3.6%; hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.56-2.32]; P=0.72). In comparison of patient-oriented composite outcomes in patients with deferred lesions, there was no significant difference between the IVUS (n=357) and FFR (n=565) groups (6.2% versus 5.9%; hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.61-1.80]; P=0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis, deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention based on IVUS-guided treatment decision showed comparable risk of clinical events with FFR-guided treatment decision. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02673424.

QFR Assessment and Prognosis After Nonculprit PCI in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization using either angiography-guided or fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy can improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, there is concern that angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may result in un-necessary PCI of the non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), and its long-term prognosis is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes after non-IRA PCI according to the quantitative flow ratio (QFR). METHODS: We performed post hoc QFR analysis of non-IRA lesions of AMI patients enrolled in the FRAME-AMI (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease) trial, which randomly allocated 562 patients into either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis >50%) for non-IRA lesions. Patients were classified by non-IRA QFR values into the QFR ≤0.80 and QFR >0.80 groups. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 443 patients (552 lesions) were eligible for QFR analysis. Of 209 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group, 30.0% (n = 60) underwent non-IRA PCI despite having QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. Conversely, only 2.7% (n = 4) among 209 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group had QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the rate of MACEs was significantly higher among patients with non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 than in patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 3.1%; HR: 4.13; 95% CI: 1.10-15.57; P = 0.036). Non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 was associated with a higher risk of non-IRA MACEs than patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 2.1%; HR: 5.44; 95% CI: 1.13-26.19; P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In AMI patients with multivessel disease, 30.0% of angiography-guided PCI resulted in un-necessary PCI for the non-IRA with QFR >0.80, which was significantly associated with an increased risk of MACEs than in those with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions. (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease [FRAME-AMI] ClinicalTrials.gov number; NCT02715518).

Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Disease in Diabetics: The BEST Extended Follow-Up Study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is associated with more complex coronary artery diseases. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a preferred revascularization strategy over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetics with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the different prognostic effects of revascularization strategies according to the diabetes status from the randomized BEST (Randomized Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) trial. METHODS: Patients (n = 880) with MVD were randomly assigned to undergo PCI with an everolimus-eluting stent vs CABG stratified by diabetics (n = 363) and nondiabetics (n = 517). The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization during a median follow-up of 11.8 years (IQR: 10.6-12.5 years). RESULTS: In diabetics, the primary endpoint rate was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (43% and 32%; HR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.12-2.08; P = 0.008). However, in nondiabetics, no significant difference was found between the groups (PCI group, 29%; CABG group, 29%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.67-1.39; P = 0.86; Pinteraction= 0.009). Irrespective of the presence of diabetes, no significant between-group differences were found in the rate of a safety composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and mortality rate. However, the rate of any repeat revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetics with MVD, CABG was associated with better clinical outcomes than PCI. However, the mortality rate was similar between PCI and CABG irrespective of diabetes status during an extended follow-up. (Ten-Year Outcomes of Randomized Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease [BEST Extended], NCT05125367; Randomized Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease [BEST], NCT00997828).

Implication of diabetic status on platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation: results from the PTRG-DES consortium.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with thrombogenicity, clinically manifested with atherothrombotic events after percutaneous cutaneous intervention (PCI). This study aimed to investigate association between DM status and platelet reactivity, and their prognostic implication in PCI-treated patients. METHODS: The Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term Prognosis-Platelet Function Test (PTRG-PFT) cohort was established to determine the linkage of platelet function test (PFT) with long-term prognosis during dual antiplatelet therapy including clopidogrel in patients treated with drug-eluting stent (DES). We assessed platelet reactivity using VerifyNow and 'high platelet reactivity (HPR)' was defined as ≥ 252 P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or stroke. RESULTS: Between July 2003 and Aug 2018, DES-treated patients with available PFT were enrolled (n = 11,714). Diabetic patients demonstrated significant higher levels of platelet reactivity (DM vs. non-DM: 225.7 ± 77.5 vs. 213.6 ± 79.1 PRU, P < 0.001) and greater prevalence of HPR compared to non-diabetic patients (38.1% vs. 32.0%, P < 0.001). PRU level and prevalence of HPR were significantly associated with insulin requirement and HbA1c level, as well as diabetic status. DM status and HPR phenotype had a similar prognostic implication, which showed the synergistic clinical impact on MACCE. Association between PRU level and MACCE occurrence seemed higher in diabetic vs. non-diabetic patients. In non-DM patients, HPR phenotype did not significantly increase the risk of MACCE (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj]: 1.073; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.869-1.325; P = 0.511), whereas HPR was an independent determinant for MACCE occurrence among diabetic patients (HRadj: 1.507; 95% CI: 1.193-1.902; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The levels of on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity are determined by diabetic status and the severity of DM. In addition, HPR phenotype significantly increases the risk of MACCE only in diabetic patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov . Unique identifier: NCT04734028.

De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the TALOS-AMI HBR substudy.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of de-escalation of P2Y12 inhibition after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may differ by high bleeding risk (HBR) status. AIMS: We investigated the efficacy and safety of de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel after PCI by HBR status. METHODS: This is a non-prespecified post hoc analysis of the TicAgrelor Versus CLOpidogrel in Stabilized Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (TALOS-AMI) trial. Net adverse clinical events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] bleeding type 2, 3, or 5) at 1 year post-PCI were compared between the de-escalation (clopidogrel plus aspirin) and the active control (ticagrelor plus aspirin) groups by HBR status, as defined by the modification of the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria. RESULTS: A total of 2,625 patients in the TALOS-AMI trial were analysed. Of these, 589 (22.4%) met the modified ARC-HBR criteria. The de-escalation group had lower primary endpoint rates than the control group in both HBR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.84) and non-HBR (HR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41-0.84) patients. There were no differences in treatment effect for the primary endpoint regardless of HBR status (p for interaction=0.904). BARC bleeding type 3 or 5 was less common in the de-escalation than the control group among HBR patients only (HR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.07-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: In stabilised acute myocardial infarction patients, unguided de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel was associated with a lower rate of net adverse clinical outcomes irrespective of HBR status. The effect of de-escalation of P2Y12 inhibition on reducing haemorrhagic events was greater in patients with HBR.