Impact of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Stent Optimization According to Clinical Presentation in Patients Undergoing Complex PCI.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the beneficial effects of intravascular imaging-guided stent optimization vary by clinical presentation during complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: In this prespecified, stratified subgroup analysis from RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex PCI), we sought to compare the outcomes between intravascular imaging vs angiography guidance according to clinical presentation. METHODS: Patients with complex coronary artery lesions were randomly assigned to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI in a 2:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), which is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Of 1,639 patients, 832 (50.8%) presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and 807 (49.2%) with chronic coronary syndrome. During a median follow-up of 2.1 years (Q1-Q3: 1.4-3.0 years), there was no significant interaction between the treatment effect of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation (P for interaction = 0.19). Among patients with ACS, the incidences of TVF were 10.4% in the intravascular imaging group and 14.6% in the angiography group (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.48-1.15; P = 0.18). Among patients with CCS, the incidences of TVF were 5.0% in the intravascular imaging group and 10.4% in the angiography group (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.27-0.80; P = 0.006). Achieving stent optimization by intravascular imaging resulted in a reduced risk of TVF among patients with ACS who were randomly assigned to intravascular imaging-guided PCI for complex coronary lesions (optimized vs unoptimized, 6.5% vs 14.1%; HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27-0.87; P = 0.02) but not those with CCS (5.4% vs 4.7%, HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.53-2.59; P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: No significant interaction was observed between the benefits of intravascular imaging and clinical presentation in the risk of TVF. Stent optimization by intravascular imaging was particularly important for ACS patients. (Intravascular Imaging- Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For Complex Coronary Artery Disease [RENOVATE]; NCT03381872).

Long-acting cilostazol versus isosorbide mononitrate for patients with vasospastic angina: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cilostazol has a vasodilatory function that may be beneficial for patients with vasospastic angina (VSA). We conducted a randomized, open-label, controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting cilostazol and isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) for VSA. METHODS: The study included patients with confirmed VSA between September 2019 and May 2021. Participants were randomly assigned to receive long-acting cilostazol (test group, 200 mg once daily) or conventional ISMN therapy (control group, 20 mg twice daily) for 4 weeks. The clinical efficacy and safety were evaluated using weekly questionnaires. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled in the study (long-acting cilostazol, n = 20; ISMN, n = 20). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups. Long acting cilostazol showed better angina symptom control within the first week compared to ISMN [reduction of pain intensity score, 6.0 (4.0-8.0) vs. 4.0 (1.0-5.0), P = 0.005; frequency of angina symptom, 0 (0-2.0) vs. 2.0 (0-3.0), P = 0.027, respectively]. The rate of neurological adverse reactions was lower in the cilostazol group than in the ISMN group (headache or dizziness, 40 vs. 85%, P = 0.009; headache, 30 vs. 70%, P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Long-acting cilostazol provided comparable control of angina and fewer adverse neurologic reactions within 4 weeks compared to ISMN. Long-acting cilostazol provides more intensive control of angina within 1 week, suggesting that it may be an initial choice for the treatment of VSA.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Optimization of Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention by Sex: A Subgroup Analysis of the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI Trial.

Importance: There have been heterogeneous results related to sex differences in prognosis after percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI) for complex coronary artery lesions. Objective: To evaluate potential differences in outcomes with intravascular imaging-guided PCI of complex coronary artery lesions between women and men. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified substudy evaluates the interaction of sex in the investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI randomized clinical trial, which demonstrated the superiority of intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. The trial was conducted at 20 sites in Korea. Patients with complex coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI were enrolled between May 2018 and May 2021, and the median (IQR) follow-up period was 2.1 (1.4-3.0) years. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to December 2023. Interventions: After diagnostic coronary angiography, eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The choice and timing of the intravascular imaging device were left to the operators' discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included individual components of the primary end point. Results: Of 1639 included patients, 339 (20.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (10.2) years. There was no difference in the risk of the primary end point between women and men (9.4% vs 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.89-2.18; P = .15). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI tended to have lower incidence of the primary end point than angiography-guided PCI in both women (5.2% vs 14.5%; adjusted HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.78; P = .01) and men (8.3% vs 11.7%; adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.05; P = .09) without significant interaction (P for interaction = .86). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients undergoing complex PCI, compared with angiographic guidance, intravascular imaging guidance was associated with similar reduction in the risk of target vessel failure among women and men. The treatment benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed no significant interaction between treatment strategy and sex. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

Clinical Benefit of Intravascular Imaging Compared With Conventional Angiography in Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) demonstrated that intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved clinical outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for patients with complex coronary artery lesions. This study aims to assess whether the prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging-guided procedural optimization persists in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: Of 1639 patients enrolled in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 192 patients with left main coronary artery disease were selected for the current prespecified substudy. Selected patients were randomly assigned to either the intravascular imaging-guided PCI group (n=138) or the angiography-guided PCI group (n=54). The primary end point was target vessel failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range 1.1 to 3.0 years), intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with lower incidence of primary end point compared with angiography-guided PCI (6.8% versus 25.1%; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.76]; P=0.010). This significant reduction in primary end point was mainly driven by a lower risk of cardiac death or spontaneous target vessel-related myocardial infarction (1.6% versus 12.7%; hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03-0.82]; P=0.028). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI was independently associated with a lower risk of primary end point, even after adjusting for various clinical factors (hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12-0.72]; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed clinical benefit over angiography-guided PCI for left main coronary artery disease in reducing the risk of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Direct Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Bridged Heart Transplantation: The Importance of Multi-Organ Failure.

Background and Objectives: Recently, approximately 40% of all heart transplantation (HTx) in South Korea are performed using the direct extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) bridging method. We conducted a study to examine the clinical outcome of direct ECMO-bridged HTx and to investigate the impact of multi-organ failure (MOF). Methods: From June 2014 to September 2022, a total of 96 adult patients who underwent isolated HTx at a single tertiary hospital were included in the study. The patients were sub-grouped into ECMO (n=48) and non-ECMO group (n=48), and the ECMO group was subdivided into awake (n=22) and non-awake (n=26) groups based on mechanical ventilator (MV) dependency. Baseline characteristics, 30-day, and 1-year mortality were analyzed retrospectively. Results: The 1-year survival rate was significantly lower in the ECMO group (72.9% vs. 95.8%, p=0.002). There was a significant difference in the 30-day survival rate between the awake and non-awake ECMO groups (81.8% vs. 65.4%, p=0.032). In the univariate analysis of logistic regression for 1-year mortality, the odds ratio was 8.5 for ECMO bridged HTx compared to the non-ECMO group, 12.3 in patients who required MV (p=0.003), and 23 with additional hemodialysis (p<0.001). Conclusions: Patients who required MV in ECMO bridged HTx showed higher preoperative MOF rates and early mortality than those extubated. When considering ECMO bridged HTx, the severity of MOF should be thoroughly investigated, and careful patient selection is necessary.

The Clinical Outcomes of Marginal Donor Hearts: A Single Center Experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the shortage of donor is a common problem worldwide, a significant portion of unutilized hearts are classified as marginal donor (MD) hearts. However, research on the correlation between the MD and the prognosis of heart transplantation (HTx) is lacking. This study was conducted to investigate the clinical impact of MD in HTx. METHODS: Consecutive 73 HTxs during 2014 and 2021 in a tertiary hospital were analyzed. MD was defined as follows; a donor age >55 years, left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, cold ischemic time >240 minutes, or significant cardiac structural problems. Preoperative characteristics and postoperative hemodynamic data, primary graft dysfunction (PGD), and the survival rate were analyzed. Risk stratification by Index for Mortality Prediction after Cardiac Transplantation (IMPACT) score was performed to examine the outcomes according to the recipient state. Each group was sub-divided into 2 risk groups according to the IMPACT score (low <10 vs. high ≥10). RESULTS: A total of 32 (43.8%) patients received an organ from MDs. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was more frequent in the non-MD group (34.4% vs. 70.7, p=0.007) There was no significant difference in PGD, 30-day mortality and long-term survival between groups. In the subgroup analysis, early outcomes did not differ between low- and high-risk groups. However, the long-term survival was better in the low-risk group (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of MD group were not significantly different from non-MD group. Particularly, in low-risk recipient, the MD group showed excellent early and long-term outcomes. These results suggest the usability of selected MD hearts without increasing adverse events.

Oral anticoagulants and concurrent rifampin administration in tuberculosis patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Evidence and guidelines for Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) use when prescribing concurrent rifampin for tuberculosis treatment in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are limited. METHODS: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database from January 2009 to December 2018, we performed a population-based retrospective cohort study to assess the net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding, of NOACs compared with warfarin among NVAF patients taking concurrent rifampin administration for tuberculosis treatment. After a propensity matching score (PSM) analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression was performed in matched cohorts to investigate the clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 735 consecutive patients selected, 465 (63.3%) received warfarin and 270 (36.7%) received NOACs. Among 254 pairs of patients after PSM, the crude incidence rate of NACE was 25.6 in NOAC group and 32.8 per 100 person-years in warfarin group. There was no significant difference between NOAC and warfarin use in NACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-1.14; P = 0.172). Major bleeding was the main driver of NACE, and NOAC use was associated with a statistically significantly lower risk of major bleeding than that with warfarin use (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00; P = 0.0499). CONCLUSIONS: In our population-based study, there was no statically significant difference in the occurrence of NACE between NOAC and warfarin use. NOAC use may be associated with a lower risk of major bleeding than that with warfarin use.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex PCI.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary-artery lesions, as compared with outcomes after angiography-guided PCI, are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label trial in South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with complex coronary-artery lesions in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. In the intravascular imaging group, the choice between intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography was at the operators' discretion. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1639 patients underwent randomization, with 1092 assigned to undergo intravascular imaging-guided PCI and 547 assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.4 to 3.0), a primary end-point event had occurred in 76 patients (cumulative incidence, 7.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 60 patients (cumulative incidence, 12.3%) in the angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.89; P = 0.008). Death from cardiac causes occurred in 16 patients (cumulative incidence, 1.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 17 patients (cumulative incidence, 3.8%) in the angiography group; target-vessel-related myocardial infarction occurred in 38 (cumulative incidence, 3.7%) and 30 (cumulative incidence, 5.6%), respectively; and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization in 32 (cumulative incidence, 3.4%) and 25 (cumulative incidence, 5.5%), respectively. There were no apparent between-group differences in the incidence of procedure-related safety events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with complex coronary-artery lesions, intravascular imaging-guided PCI led to a lower risk of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization than angiography-guided PCI. (Supported by Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03381872).

Safety and Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice.

BACKGROUND: The risk of device thrombosis and device-oriented clinical outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was reported to be significantly higher than with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, optimal device implantation may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving BVS. The current study evaluated mid-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS with meticulous device optimization under intravascular imaging guidance. METHODS: The SMART-REWARD and PERSPECTIVE-PCI registries in Korea prospectively enrolled 390 patients with BVS and 675 patients with DES, respectively. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years and the secondary major endpoint was patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) at 2 years. RESULTS: Patient-level pooled analysis evaluated 1,003 patients (377 patients with BVS and 626 patients with DES). Mean scaffold diameter per lesion was 3.24 ± 0.30 mm in BVS group. Most BVSs were implanted with pre-dilatation (90.9%), intravascular imaging guidance (74.9%), and post-dilatation (73.1%) at proximal to mid segment (81.9%) in target vessel. Patients treated with BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF (2.9% vs. 3.7%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.283, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487-3.378, P = 0.615) and 2-year POCO (4.5% vs. 5.9%, adjusted HR, 1.413, 95% CI, 0.663-3.012, P = 0.370) than those with DES. The rate of 2-year definite or probable device thrombosis (0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.424) was also similar. The sensitivity analyses consistently showed comparable risk of TVF and POCO between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: With meticulous device optimization under imaging guidance and avoidance of implantation in small vessels, BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF and device thrombosis with DES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02601404, NCT04265443.

Prasugrel dose de-escalation in diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Diseases-Comparison of Reduction of Prasugrel Dose or Polymer Technology in ACS Patients) randomized trial. The efficacy and safety of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy (prasugrel 5 mg daily) were compared with conventional therapy (prasugrel 10 mg daily) in patients with DM. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) class ≥2 bleeding events. The secondary ischaemic outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, defined as the composite of cardiac death, non-fatal MI, ST, or ischaemic stroke. Of 2338 patients randomized, 990 had DM. The primary endpoint of NACE occurred in 38 patients (7.6%) receiving prasugrel dose de-escalation and in 53 patients (11.3%) receiving conventional therapy among patients with DM [hazard ratio (HR) 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.99; P = 0.049]. Prasugrel dose de-escalation as compared with conventional therapy did not increase the risk of ischaemic events (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.56-1.88; P = 0.927) but decreased BARC class ≥2 bleeding in patients with DM (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.84; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Prasugrel dose de-escalation compared with conventional therapy may reduce the risk of net clinical outcomes, mostly driven by a reduction in bleeding without an increase in ischaemic events in patients with DM. Trial Registration: HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS, NCT02193971, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02193971.

Consistency of dose rates after applying machine-specific reference correction factors for the gamma knife 16 mm collimator field.

BACKGROUND: The machine-specific reference (msr) correction factors ( k Q msr , Q 0 f msr , f ref $k_{{Q_{{\rm{msr}}}},\;{Q_0}}^{{f_{{\rm{msr}}}},{f_{{\rm{ref}}}}}$ ) were introduced in International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Report Series 483 (TRS-483) for reference dosimetry of small fields. Several correction factor sets exist for a Leksell Gamma Knife (GK) Perfexion or Icon. Nevertheless, experiments have not rigorously validated the correction factors from different studies. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the role and accuracy of k Q msr , Q 0 f msr , f ref $k_{{Q_{{\rm{msr}}}},\;{Q_0}}^{{f_{{\rm{msr}}}},{f_{{\rm{ref}}}}}$ values in determining the absorbed dose rates to water in the reference dosimetry of Gamma Knife. METHODS: The dose rates in the 16 mm collimator field of a GK were determined following the international code of practices with three ionization chambers: PTW T31010, PTW T31016 (PTW Freiberg GmbH, New York, NY), and Exradin A16 (Standard Imaging, Inc., Middleton, WI). A chamber was placed at the center of a solid water phantom (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) using a detector-specific insert. The reference point of the ionization chamber was confirmed using cone-beam CT images. Consistency checks were repeated five times at a GK site and performed once at seven GK sites. Correction factors from six simulations reported in previous studies were employed. Variations in the dose rates and relative dose rates before and after applying the k Q m s r , Q 0 f m s r , f r e f $k_{{Q_{msr}},\;{Q_0}}^{{f_{msr}},{f_{ref}}}$ were statistically compared. RESULTS: The standard deviation of the dose rates measured by the three chambers decreased significantly after any correction method was applied (p = 0.000). When the correction factors of all studies were averaged, the standard deviation was reduced significantly more than when any single correction method was applied (p ≤ 0.030), except for the IAEA TRS-483 correction factors (p = 0.148). Before any correction was applied, there were statistically significant differences among the relative dose rates measured by the three chambers (p = 0.000). None of the single correction methods could remove the differences among the ionization chambers (p ≤ 0.038). After TRS-483 correction, the dose rate of Exradin A16 differed from those of the other two chambers (p ≤ 0.025). After the averaged factors were applied, there were no statistically significant differences between any pairs of chambers according to Scheffe's post hoc analyses (p ≥ 0.051); however, PTW T31010 differed from PTW 31016 according to Tukey's HSD analyses (p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: The k Q msr , Q 0 f msr , f ref $k_{{Q_{{\rm{msr}}}},\;{Q_0}}^{{f_{{\rm{msr}}}},{f_{{\rm{ref}}}}}$ significantly reduced variations in the dose rates measured by the three ionization chambers. The mean correction factors of the six simulations produced the most consistent results, but this finding was not explicitly proven in the statistical analyses.

Sex-related impact on clinical outcomes of patients treated with drug-eluting stents according to clinical presentation: Patient-level pooled analysis from the GRAND-DES registry.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of sex and initial clinical presentation to the long-term outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still debated. METHODS: Individual patient data from 5 Korean-multicenter drug-eluting stent (DES) registries (The GRAND-DES) were pooled. A total of 17,286 patients completed 3-year follow-up (5216 women and 12,070 men). The median follow-up duration was 1125 days (interquartile range 1097-1140 days), and the primary endpoint was cardiac death at 3 years. RESULTS: The clinical indication for PCI was stable angina pectoris (SAP) in 36.8%, unstable angina pectoris (UAP) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in 47.4%, and ST-segment elevation myocardial (STEMI) in 15.8%. In all groups, women were older and had a higher proportion of hypertension and diabetes mellitus compared with men. Women presenting with STEMI were older than women with SAP, with the opposite seen in men. There was no sex difference in cardiac death for SAP or UAP/NSTEMI. In STEMI patients, the incidence of cardiac death (7.9% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.001), all-cause mortality (11.1% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.001), and minor bleeding (2.2% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.043) was significantly higher in women. After multivariable adjustment, cardiac death was lower in women for UAP/NSTEMI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.89, p = 0.005), while it was similar for STEMI (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.65-1.44, p = 0.884). CONCLUSIONS: There was no sex difference in cardiac death after PCI with DES for SAP and UAP/NSTEMI patients. In STEMI patients, women had worse outcomes compared with men; however, after the adjustment of confounders, female sex was not an independent predictor of mortality.

Safety and efficacy of immediate heparin reversal with protamine after complex percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Compared to simple percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), complex PCI is associated with higher bleeding and thrombotic risk. No previous study has evaluated the use of protamine after PCI with contemporary technologies. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of manual compression with and without protamine after transfemoral complex PCI. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 160 patients (protamine group, n = 92; non-protamine group, n = 68) who underwent complex PCI via the femoral artery. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke/systemic embolism, bleeding requiring blood transfusion, and vascular access complications. RESULTS: The primary outcome was significantly lower in the protamine group than in the non-protamine group (4.3% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.006). This was driven mainly by the lower incidences of hematoma in the protamine group (3.3% vs. 13.2%, p = 0.020). Furthermore, the protamine group had a significantly shorter hospital stay than the non-protamine group (4.8 ± 3.7 days vs. 8.4 ± 8.3 days, p = 0.001). While > 90% of the patients had acute coronary syndrome, there were no incidences of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent complex PCI via transfemoral access, immediate protamine administration was associated with a significantly lower rate of vascular access complications, especially hematoma, and shorter hospital stay than no protamine administration.

The Clinical Impact of ß-Blocker Therapy on Patients With Chronic Coronary Artery Disease After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The outcome benefits of ß-blockers in chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) have not been fully assessed. We evaluated the prognostic impact of ß-blockers on patients with chronic CAD after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: A total of 3,075 patients with chronic CAD were included from the Grand Drug-Eluting Stent registry. We analyzed ß-blocker prescriptions, including doses and types, in each patient at 3-month intervals from discharge. After propensity score matching, 1,170 pairs of patients (ß-blockers vs. no ß-blockers) were derived. Primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI). We further analyzed the outcome benefits of different doses (low-, medium-, and high-dose) and types (conventional or vasodilating) of ß-blockers. RESULTS: During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3.1 (3.0-3.1) years, 134 (5.7%) patients experienced primary outcome. Overall, ß-blockers demonstrated no significant benefit in primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.24), all-cause death (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60-1.25), and MI (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.49-3.15). In subgroup analysis, ß-blockers were associated with a lower risk of all-cause death in patients with previous MI and/or revascularization (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14-0.99) (p for interaction=0.045). No significant associations were found for the clinical outcomes with different doses and types of ß-blockers. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ß-blocker therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with chronic CAD undergoing PCI. Limited mortality benefit of ß-blockers may exist for patients with previous MI and/or revascularization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03507205.

A Case of Heart Transplantation for Fulminant Myocarditis After ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination.

Vaccines have become the mainstay of management against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019; COVID-19) in the absence of effective antiviral therapy. Various adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination have been reported, including cardiovascular complications such as myocarditis or pericarditis. Herein, we describe clinical records of a 63-year woman with fulminant myocarditis following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination that was salvaged by heart transplantation. She complained chest pain, nausea, vomiting, and fever after the second vaccination. After the heart transplantation, the patient died due to necrotizing pneumonia on the 54th day of onset. Fulminant myocarditis is very rare after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination but can be fatal.

Prasugrel Dose De-escalation Therapy After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Post Hoc Analysis From the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS Trial.

Importance: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. However, whether such benefits are similarly observed in those receiving complex procedures is unknown. Objective: To investigate whether the benefits of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy are maintained in the complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) subgroup. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial, a randomized, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, multicenter trial performed at 35 hospitals in South Korea. Study participants included patients with ACS who were receiving PCI. Data were collected from September 30, 2014, to December 18, 2015, and analyzed from September 17, 2020, to June 15, 2021. Interventions and Exposures: Patients were randomized to a prasugrel dose de-escalation (5 mg daily) at 1 month post-PCI group or a conventional (10 mg daily) group. Complex PCI was defined as having at least 1 of the following features: 3 or more stents implanted, 3 or more lesions treated, bifurcation PCI, total stent length 60 mm or larger, left main PCI, or heavy calcification. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main analysis end points were MACE (major adverse cardiac event, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and repeat revascularization) at 1 year for ischemic outcomes, and BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) class 2 or higher bleeding events at 1 year for bleeding outcomes. Results: Of 2271 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.9 [9.0] years; 2024 [89%] male patients) for whom full procedural data were available, 705 patients received complex PCI, and 1566 patients received noncomplex PCI. Complex PCI was associated with higher rates of ischemic outcomes but not with bleeding outcomes. Prasugrel dose de-escalation did not increase the risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.47-1.66; P = .70 in complex PCI; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.45-1.46; P = .48 in noncomplex PCI; P for interaction = .84) but decreased BARC class 2 or higher bleeding events (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10-0.61; P = .002 in complex PCI; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.00; P = .05 in noncomplex PCI; P for interaction = .08), albeit with wide 95% CIs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of patients with ACS, prasugrel dose de-escalation compared with conventional therapy was not associated with an increased risk of ischemic outcomes but may reduce the risk of minor bleeding events at 1 year, irrespective of PCI complexity. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02193971.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled, Two Parallel-Group, Optional Titration, Multicenter, Phase IIIb Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Fimasartan Versus Perindopril Monotherapy With and Without a Diuretic Combination in Elderly Patients With Essential Hypertension.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan in elderly patients have not been fully evaluated. This study was therefore conducted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan compared with perindopril in elderly Korean patients aged >70 years with essential hypertension (defined by a mean sitting systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 2 parallel-group, optional titration, multicenter, Phase IIIb trial (FITNESS [Fimasartan in the Senior Subjects]) enrolled 241 patients from 23 cardiac centers in the Republic of Korea between August 2017 and December 2019. After the placebo run-in period, treatment started with fimasartan 30 mg or perindopril arginine 2.5 mg once daily at a 1:1 ratio; if BP was not controlled at week 4, the dose was doubled. If BP was not controlled at week 8, a diuretic combination (fimasartan 60 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or perindopril arginine 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg) was administered. After 16 weeks of the double-blind treatment, the patients with controlled BP participated in an 8-week open-label extension study, with the 2 groups unified by fimasartan 60 mg with or without hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in SBP for 8 weeks. The secondary outcomes included a change in sitting diastolic BP (DBP) for 8 weeks and changes in SBP and DBP for 4, 16, and 24 weeks. FINDINGS: At week 8, mean SBP significantly decreased from baseline in both groups: -14.2 (14.4) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and -9.0 (16.1) mm Hg in the perindopril group. The difference between the 2 groups was 5.4 (2.1) mm Hg, indicating the noninferiority of fimasartan to perindopril. Moreover, fimasartan exhibited a higher BP-lowering effect than perindopril (P = 0.0108). In addition, reductions in SBP and DBP from baseline to weeks 4, 8, and 16 were significantly greater in the fimasartan group than in the perindopril group, although the SBP reduction was comparable at week 16. Both groups reported an excellent mean compliance rate of 97.4% (4.7%) through week 16. During the study period, 82 adverse events were reported in 52 patients, 40 in the fimasartan group and 42 in the perindopril group (P = 0.4647). Dizziness was the most commonly reported adverse event (7 cases). Remarkably, only 1 case of orthostatic hypotension was reported during the study period. IMPLICATIONS: In elderly patients with essential hypertension, fimasartan 30 to 60 mg with a possible hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-mg combination was noninferior to perindopril 2.5 to 5 mg with a possible indapamide 1.25-mg combination. Furthermore, fimasartan exhibited higher BP-lowering efficacy than perindopril. There was no difference in tolerability between the 2 groups. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246555.