Doo Il Kim

Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background and Objectives A higher neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been associated with poor clinical outcomes in various cardiac diseases. However, the clinical availability of NLR in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been known. We evaluated the availability of NLR to predict clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. Subjects and Methods We analyzed 326 consecutive STEMI patients treated with primary PCI. The patients were divided into tertiles according to NLR: NLR≤3.30 (n=108), 3.316.53 (n=110). We evaluated the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all causes of death, non-fatal MI, and ischemic stroke at the 12-month follow-up. Results The high NLR group was associated with a significantly higher rate of 12-month MACE (19.1% vs. 3.7%, p<0.001), 12-month death (18.2% vs. 2.8%, p<0.001), in-hospital MACE (12.7% vs. 2.8%, p=0.010) and in-hospital death (12.7% vs. 1.9%, p=0.003) compared to the low NLR group. In the multivariable model, high NLR was an independent predictor of 12-month MACE {hazard ratio (HR) 3.33 (1.09-10.16), p=0.035} and death {HR 4.10 (1.17-14.46), p=0.028} after adjustment for gender, left ventricular ejection fraction, creatinine clearance, angiographic parameters and factors included in the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score for STEMI. There was a significant gradient of 12-month MACE across the NLR tertiles with a markedly increased MACE hazard in the high NLR group (log rank test p=0.002). Conclusion The NLR is a useful marker to predict 12-month MACE and death in patients with STEMI who have undergone primary PCI.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Korean Multicentre Endeavor (KOMER) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) trial

AIMS The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS This study was a prospective, single-blind, multicentre, randomised trial. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months post-procedure, defined as cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR). An angiographic substudy was performed at nine months among 348 patients. From October 2006 to April 2008, 611 patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI were randomly assigned to treatment with ZES (n=205), SES (n=204), or PES (n=202). The cumulative incidence of MACE was 5.9% in the ZES group, 3.4% in the SES group and 5.7% in the PES group at 12-month follow-up (p=0.457). There was a trend towards a lower rate of ischaemia-driven TLR at 12- (p=0.092) and 18-month (p=0.080) follow-up in the SES group compared to the ZES and PES groups. No difference was observed in rates of cardiac death, recurrent MI and combined death and/or recurrent MI among three groups at 12- and 18-month follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis was similar among the three groups (2.0% in each group, p=1.000). CONCLUSIONS As compared with SES and PES, the use of ZES in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, showed similar rates of MACE, cardiac death and recurrent MI at 12 and 18 months. There was a trend towards a higher rate of TLR with ZES or PES compared to SES.

Paclitaxel- Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents for Treatment of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: With Analyses for Diabetic and Nondiabetic Subpopulation

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine which drug-eluting stent (DES) is preferable for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and to elucidate the impact of diabetes mellitus on the outcome of each DES. BACKGROUND Recent studies have shown the benefit of DES in patients with STEMI. Diabetes mellitus might differentially affect outcomes of each DES. METHODS We analyzed the large-scale, prospective, observational KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry) study, which enrolled 4,416 STEMI patients (26% with diabetes) treated with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Primary outcome was major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS In the overall population, the MACE rate at 1 year was significantly higher in the PES than the SES group (11.6% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.014), which was mainly due to increased TLR (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). In the diabetic subgroup, however, the MACE rate was not significantly different between PES and SES (14.5% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.217), in contrast to the nondiabetic subgroup, where PES was inferior to SES as in the overall population. Matching by propensity-score did not significantly alter these results. For TLR, there was interaction between the type of stents and diabetes mellitus (unadjusted: p = 0.052; after propensity-score matching: p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS The PES was inferior to the SES in the overall population, with regard to the occurrence of MACE and TLR. However, subgroup analysis for diabetic subjects showed no differences in clinical outcomes between PES and SES. These results suggest that diabetes differentially affects the outcome of first-generation DES.

Clinical features of familial hypercholesterolemia in Korea: Predictors of pathogenic mutations and coronary artery disease – A study supported by the Korean Society of Lipidology and Atherosclerosis

BACKGROUND Proper screening and diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is of critical importance for cardiovascular prevention. However, the clinical diagnosis of FH remains difficult partly because its phenotype can vary between different ethnicities. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical features and the best diagnostic approach in Korean FH patients. The predictors of putative pathogenic mutations and coronary artery disease (CAD) were also identified. METHODS AND RESULTS Ninety-seven patients with low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol >190 mg/dL and xanthoma or FH-compatible family history were included. Putative pathogenic mutations in LDLR, APOB, or PCSK9 genes were identified in 32% of the enrolled patients. The subjects were classified according to four sets of clinical criteria (Simon Broome, Dutch, MEDPED, Japanese). The mutation rates in definite type FH of Simon Broome or Dutch criteria were 35%-37% and lower in our patients than in those of other countries. The mutation detection rate by MEDPED criteria was 67%-75% and higher than those based on other criteria. The best low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) threshold for predicting mutations was 225 mg/dL. LDL-C was found to be the only independent predictor of mutation carriers, while hypertension and low high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol were predictive of CAD. CONCLUSIONS The conventional clinical criteria showed limited mutation detection power and low specificities in Korean FH patients, in whom the best LDL-C threshold for putative mutation was 225 mg/dL. Traditional cardiovascular risk factors were also significantly associated with CAD risk in this population.

Comparison of Triple Anti-Platelet Therapy (Aspirin, Clopidogrel, and Cilostazol) and Double Anti-Platelet Therapy (Aspirin and Clopidogrel) on Platelet Aggregation in Type 2 Diabetic Patients Undergoing Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

Background and Objectives Triple anti-platelet therapy may produce more potent inhibition of platelet aggregation in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation. We tested whether this effect could be maintained in diabetic patients, where platelet reactivity is increased and the risk of stent thrombosis is higher. Subjects and Methods Fifty five type 2 diabetic patients who had undergone drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation and chronic anti-platelet therapy (>1 month) were stratified according to the status of anti-platelet therapy. Platelet aggregation after adenosine diphosphate (ADP; 10 µmol/L and 20 µmol/L) stimulation was compared using light transmittance aggregometry between dual (aspirin plus clopidogrel, n=34) and triple therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel plus cilostazol, n=21) groups. Results The 2 groups had similar clinical and procedural characteristics. Maximal ADP-induced platelet aggregation was significantly lower in the triple therapy group than the dual therapy group (ADP 10 µmol/L, 37.1±15.4 vs. 28.3±11.8, p=0.03; ADP 20 µmol/L, 63.1±15.0 vs. 49.1±15.1, p=0.01), but there were no differences in diabetic treatment (oral hypoglycemic agent vs. insulin) or diabetic control {hemoglobin Alc (HbA1c) ≤7 vs. HbA1c >7}. Conclusion Triple anti-platelet therapy showed more potent inhibition of maximal ADP induced platelet aggregation in type 2 diabetic patients receiving chronic anti-platelet therapy. This finding suggests that triple antiplatelet therapy may be more effective in preventing thrombotic complications after DES implantation in type 2 diabetic patients.

Incidental Diagnosis of the Unicuspid Aortic Valve with Ascending Aortic Aneurysm in an Asymptomatic Adult

The unicuspid aortic valve is an extremely rare congenital anomaly. It usually presents with aortic stenosis and/or aortic regurgitation. Other cardiovascular complications, such as aortic dilatation and left ventricular hypertrophy can accompany it. Herein, we present a case report of a 50-year-old asymptomatic male patient with unicuspid aortic valve, complicated by ascending aortic aneurysm.

A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, 3 × 3 Factorial Design, Phase II Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the Combination of Fimasartan/Amlodipine in Patients With Essential Hypertension

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fimasartan/amlodipine combination in patients with hypertension and to determine the optimal composition for a future single-pill combination formulation. METHODS This Phase II study was conducted by using a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3 × 3 factorial design. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, eligible hypertensive patients (with a sitting diastolic blood pressure [SiDBP] between 90 and 114 mm Hg) were randomized to treatment. They received single or combined administration of fimasartan at 3 doses (0, 30, and 60 mg) and amlodipine at 3 doses (0, 5, and 10 mg) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the change in SiDBP from baseline and at week 8; secondary end points included the change in SiDBP from baseline and at week 4 and the changes in sitting systolic blood pressure from baseline and at weeks 4 and 8. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. FINDINGS 420 Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomly allocated to the 9 groups. Mean (SD) SiDBP changes in each group after 8 weeks were as follows: placebo, -6.0 (8.5) mm Hg; amlodipine 5 mg, -10.6 (9.2) mm Hg; amlodipine 10 mg, -15.9 (7.2) mm Hg; fimasartan 30 mg, -10.1 (9.1) mm Hg; fimasartan 60 mg, -13.0 (10.0) mm Hg; fimasartan 30 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, -16.2 (8.5) mm Hg; fimasartan 30 mg/amlodipine 10 mg, -19.5 (7.5) mm Hg; fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, -16.6 (6.9) mm Hg; and fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg, -21.5 (8.3) mm Hg. All treatment groups produced significantly greater reductions in blood pressure compared with the placebo group. In addition, all combination treatment groups had superior reductions in blood pressure compared with the monotherapy groups. In the combination treatment groups, doubling fimasartan dose in the given dose of amlodipine did not show further BP reduction, whereas doubling amlodipine dose showed significantly further BP reduction in the given dose of fimasartan. During the study period, 75 (17.9%) of 419 patients experienced 110 AEs. Ninety-five AEs were mild, 9 were moderate, and 6 were severe in intensity. Eight patients discontinued the study due to AEs. There was no significant difference in incidence of AEs among groups (P = 0.0884). The most common AE was headache (12 patients [2.9%]), followed by dizziness (11 patients [2.6%]) and elevated blood creatine phosphokinase levels (6 patients [1.4%]). IMPLICATIONS Fimasartan combined with amlodipine produced superior blood pressure reductions and low levels of AEs compared with either monotherapy. Therefore, a single-pill combination with fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg will be developed. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01518998.

A Case of a Right Atrial and Inferior Vena Caval Thrombus Resembling a Right Atrial Myxoma

A right atrial and inferior vena caval thrombus in a structurally normal heart is a very rare condition. We report a case of such a thrombus in a 66-year-old woman. She was admitted to our hospital with recent onset dyspnea. Based on echocardiography, we suspected that she had myxoma. We performed an excision of a mass, which was found, by pathologic examination, to be an organized mural thrombus.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase III Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Fimasartan/Amlodipine Combined Therapy Versus Fimasartan Monotherapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Unresponsive to Fimasartan Monotherapy.

PURPOSE The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of fimasartan/amlodipine combination therapy was superior to that of fimasartan monotherapy after 8 weeks of treatment in patients with hypertension who had failed to respond adequately to fimasartan monotherapy. METHODS This trial was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, Phase III clinical study. Patients who failed to respond after 4 weeks of treatment with 60 mg daily of fimasartan (sitting systolic blood pressure [SiSBP]) ≥140 mm Hg) were randomized to receive either daily fimasartan 60 mg or fimasartan/amlodipine 60 mg/10 mg. The primary efficacy end point was the change in SiSBP from baseline to week 8. Secondary end points included the change in SiSBP from baseline to week 4, the changes in sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline to weeks 4 and 8, and the response rate (SiSBP <140 mm Hg or decrease in SiSBP ≥20 mm Hg) or control rate (SiSBP <140 mm Hg) at week 8. Treatment-emergent adverse events were also assessed. FINDINGS Of 143 patients randomized to treatment, 137 patients who had available efficacy data were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 59.1 (8.9) years, and 100 (73.0%) were male. Baseline SiSBP and sitting diastolic blood pressure were 150.6 (9.2) mm Hg and 91.7 (8.6) mm Hg, respectively. In the fimasartan/amlodipine combination group, a greater reduction in SiSBP from baseline to week 8 was observed compared with the fimasartan group (7.8 [13.3] mm Hg in the fimasartan group vs 20.5 [14.6] mm Hg in the fimasartan/amlodipine group; P < 0.0001). This reduction was observed after 4 weeks. The mean SiSBP changes from baseline to week 4 were 8.1 (15.8) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and 20.1 (14.7) mm Hg in the fimasartan/amlodipine group (P < 0.0001). At week 8, the response rate was significantly higher in the fimasartan/amlodipine (82.1%) group than in the fimasartan (32.9%) group (P < 0.0001). The control rate at week 8 was also higher in the fimasartan/amlodipine (79.1%) group than in the fimasartan (31.4%) group (P < 0.0001). Adverse drug reactions were observed in 9 patients (6.3%), with no significant differences between treatment groups. There were no serious adverse events associated with the study drugs. IMPLICATIONS Fimasartan/amlodipine combination therapy exhibited superior efficacy in reducing blood pressure, with no increase in adverse drug reactions, compared with fimasartan monotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02152306.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Candesartan-controlled, Parallel Group Comparison Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Antihypertensive Efficacy and Safety of Fimasartan in Patients with Mild to Moderate Essential Hypertension

PURPOSE A new antihypertensive drug that selectively blocks angiotensin II receptor type 1, fimasartan, has a potent and rapidly acting antihypertensive effect. We investigated the antihypertensive effects of fimasartan 60 and 120 mg and its safety in comparison to 8 mg of candesartan. METHODS This clinical trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active comparator, and parallel group study. Three hundred sixty-two individuals were screened, and 290 patients aged 19 to 75 years with mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP], 90-110 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to 60 to 120 mg/d of fimasartan or 8 mg/d of candesartan after a 2-week placebo run-in period. Treatments were administered for 12 weeks without dosage adjustment. The primary end point was the differences in DBP changes at week 12. FINDINGS After 12 weeks of treatment, DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased significantly in all 3 groups. The decrease in DBP at week 12 was larger but not statistically significant in the fimasartan 60 mg compared with the candesartan 8 mg group with a mean (SD) difference of 1.72 (8.32) mm Hg (95% CI, -0.71 to 4.15 mm Hg; P = 0.17). The lower margin of the CI (-0.71 mm Hg) exceeded the noninferiority margin (-3.5 mm Hg). The DBP-lowering effect of fimasartan 120 mg was also nonsignificantly larger than candesartan 8 mg (difference, 1.58 [8.27] mm Hg; P = 0.20). The decrease in SBP was also nonsignificantly larger in the fimasartan 60 mg group compared with the candesartan 8 mg group (difference, 3.50 [12.63] mm Hg; P = .06). The SBP-lowering effect of fimasartan 120 mg was statistically larger than candesartan 8 mg (difference, 4.98 [13.99] mm Hg; P = .02). Response rate (DBP <90 mm Hg or DBP lowering >10 mm Hg at week 12) was also nonsignificantly greater in both fimasartan groups (Fimasartan 60 mg, 81%; fimasartan 120 mg, 72%; candesartan 8 mg, 71%). The safety profile of the fimasartan 60 mg and 120 mg was similar to candesartan 8 mg, with a slightly higher, but statistically not significant, incidence of hepatic enzyme elevation in fimasartan 120 mg. IMPLICATIONS The antihypertensive effect of fimasartan, a newly available angiotensin II receptor type 1 blocker, is comparable, although not superior, to candesartan with a good safety profile. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01135212.