In Ho Chae

Randomized Trial of Stents versus Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used to treat unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered to be the treatment of choice. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis to undergo CABG (300 patients) or PCI with sirolimus-eluting stents (300 patients). Using a wide margin for noninferiority, we compared the groups with respect to the primary composite end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization) at 1 year. Event rates at 2 years were also compared between the two groups. RESULTS The primary end point occurred in 26 patients assigned to PCI as compared with 20 patients assigned to CABG (cumulative event rate, 8.7% vs. 6.7%; absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.6 to 5.6; P=0.01 for noninferiority). By 2 years, the primary end point had occurred in 36 patients in the PCI group as compared with 24 in the CABG group (cumulative event rate, 12.2% vs. 8.1%; hazard ratio with PCI, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.90 to 2.52; P=0.12). The composite rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 2 years occurred in 13 and 14 patients in the two groups, respectively (cumulative event rate, 4.4% and 4.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.96; P=0.83). Ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization occurred in 26 patients in the PCI group as compared with 12 patients in the CABG group (cumulative event rate, 9.0% vs. 4.2%; hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.32; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial involving patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis, PCI with sirolimus-eluting stents was shown to be noninferior to CABG with respect to major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events. However, the noninferiority margin was wide, and the results cannot be considered clinically directive. (Funded by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Seoul, Korea, and others; PRECOMBAT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00422968.).

Six-Month Versus 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stents The Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher to Reduce Late Loss After Stenting (EXCELLENT) Randomized, Multicenter Study

Background— The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after implantation of drug-eluting coronary stents remains undetermined. We aimed to test whether 6-month DAPT would be noninferior to 12-month DAPT after implantation of drug-eluting stents. Methods and Results— We randomly assigned 1443 patients undergoing implantation of drug-eluting stents to receive 6- or 12-month DAPT (in a 1:1 ratio). The primary end point was a target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 12 months. Rates of target vessel failure at 12 months were 4.8% in the 6-month DAPT group and 4.3% in the 12-month DAPT group (the upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 2.4%; P =0.001 for noninferiority with a predefined noninferiority margin of 4.0%). Although stent thrombosis tended to occur more frequently in the 6-month DAPT group than in the 12-month group (0.9% versus 0.1%; hazard ratio, 6.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–49.96; P =0.10), the risk of death or myocardial infarction did not differ in the 2 groups (2.4% versus 1.9%; hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.47; P =0.58). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, target vessel failure occurred more frequently in the 6-month DAPT group than in the 12-month group (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.42–7.03; P =0.005) among diabetic patients. Conclusions— Six-month DAPT did not increase the risk of target vessel failure at 12 months after implantation of drug-eluting stents compared with 12-month DAPT. However, the noninferiority margin was wide, and the study was underpowered for death or myocardial infarction. Our results need to be confirmed in larger trials. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: [NCT00698607][1]. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-31} [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00698607&atom=%2Fcirculationaha%2F125%2F3%2F505.atomBackground— The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after implantation of drug-eluting coronary stents remains undetermined. We aimed to test whether 6-month DAPT would be noninferior to 12-month DAPT after implantation of drug-eluting stents. Methods and Results— We randomly assigned 1443 patients undergoing implantation of drug-eluting stents to receive 6- or 12-month DAPT (in a 1:1 ratio). The primary end point was a target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 12 months. Rates of target vessel failure at 12 months were 4.8% in the 6-month DAPT group and 4.3% in the 12-month DAPT group (the upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 2.4%; P=0.001 for noninferiority with a predefined noninferiority margin of 4.0%). Although stent thrombosis tended to occur more frequently in the 6-month DAPT group than in the 12-month group (0.9% versus 0.1%; hazard ratio, 6.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–49.96; P=0.10), the risk of death or myocardial infarction did not differ in the 2 groups (2.4% versus 1.9%; hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.47; P=0.58). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, target vessel failure occurred more frequently in the 6-month DAPT group than in the 12-month group (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.42–7.03; P=0.005) among diabetic patients. Conclusions— Six-month DAPT did not increase the risk of target vessel failure at 12 months after implantation of drug-eluting stents compared with 12-month DAPT. However, the noninferiority margin was wide, and the study was underpowered for death or myocardial infarction. Our results need to be confirmed in larger trials. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00698607.

Triple Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background— Whether triple antiplatelet therapy is superior or similar to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of drug-eluting stents remains unclear. Methods and Results— A total of 4203 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents were analyzed retrospectively in the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR). They received either dual (aspirin plus clopidogrel; dual group; n=2569) or triple (aspirin plus clopidogrel plus cilostazol; triple group; n=1634) antiplatelet therapy. The triple group received additional cilostazol at least for 1 month. Various major adverse cardiac events at 8 months were compared between these 2 groups. Compared with the dual group, the triple group had a similar incidence of major bleeding events but a significantly lower incidence of in-hospital mortality. Clinical outcomes at 8 months showed that the triple group had significantly lower incidences of cardiac death (adjusted odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.84; P=0.007), total death (adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.89; P=0.010), and total major adverse cardiac events (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.95; P=0.019) than the dual group. Subgroup analysis showed that older (>65 years old), female, and diabetic patients got more benefits from triple antiplatelet therapy than their counterparts who received dual antiplatelet therapy. Conclusions— Triple antiplatelet therapy seems to be superior to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. These results may provide the rationale for the use of triple antiplatelet therapy in these patients.

Randomized Trial of Stents Versus Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease 5-Year Outcomes of the PRECOMBAT Study

BACKGROUND In a previous randomized trial, we found that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not inferior to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis at 1 year. OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the 5-year outcomes of PCI compared with CABG for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. METHODS We randomly assigned 600 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis to undergo PCI with a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 300) or CABG (n = 300). The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE: a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) and compared on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS At 5 years, MACCE occurred in 52 patients in the PCI group and 42 patients in the CABG group (cumulative event rates of 17.5% and 14.3%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84 to 1.90; p = 0.26). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke as well as their composite (8.4% and 9.6%; HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.52; p = 0.66). Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization occurred more frequently in the PCI group than in the CABG group (11.4% and 5.5%, respectively; HR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.84; p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS During 5 years of follow-up, our study did not show significant difference regarding the rate of MACCE between patients who underwent PCI with a sirolimus-eluting stent and those who underwent CABG. However, considering the limited power of our study, our results should be interpreted with caution. (Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease [PRECOMBAT]; NCT00422968).

Everolimus-Eluting Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention The EXCELLENT (Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher to Reduce Late Loss After Stenting) Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to compare the angiographic outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in a head-to-head manner. BACKGROUND EES have been shown to be superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents in inhibiting late loss (LL) and clinical outcome. Whether EES may provide similar angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with SES is undetermined. METHODS This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial to demonstrate the noninferiority of EES compared with SES in preventing LL at 9 months. A total of 1,443 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized 3:1 to receive EES or SES. Routine follow-up angiography was recommended at 9 months. The primary endpoint was in-segment LL at 9 months, and major secondary endpoints included in-stent LL at 9 months, target lesion failure, cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis at 12 months. Data were managed by an independent management center, and clinical events were adjudicated by an independent adjudication committee. RESULTS Clinical follow-up was available in 1,428 patients and angiographic follow-up in 924 patients (1,215 lesions). The primary endpoint of the study (in-segment LL at 9 months) was 0.11 ± 0.38 mm and 0.06 ± 0.36 mm for EES and SES, respectively (p for noninferiority = 0.0382). The in-stent LL was also noninferior (EES 0.19 ± 0.35 mm; SES 0.15 ± 0.34 mm; p for noninferiority = 0.0121). The incidence of clinical endpoints was not statistically different between the 2 groups, including target lesion failure (3.75% vs. 3.05%; p = 0.53) and stent thrombosis (0.37% vs. 0.83%; p = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS EES were noninferior to SES in inhibition of LL after stenting, which was corroborated by similar rates of clinical outcomes. (Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher in Reducing Late Loss After Stenting [EXCELLENT]; NCT00698607).

Culprit-Lesion-Only Versus Multivessel Revascularization Using Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-Based Analysis

Background and Objectives In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease, complete revascularization (CR) for non-culprit lesions is not routinely recommended. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of multivessel compared with infarct-related artery (IRA)-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI. Subjects and Methods From the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) database, 1,094 STEMI patients with multivessel disease who underwent primary PCI with drug-eluting stents were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: culprit-vessel-only revascularization (COR, n=827) group; multivessel revascularization, including non-IRA (MVR, n=267) group. The primary endpoint of this study included major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), such as death, myocardial infarction, or target or nontarget lesion revascularization at one year. Results There was no difference in clinical characteristics between the two groups. During the one-year follow-up, 102 (15.2%) patients in the COR group and 32 (14.2%) in the MVR group experienced at least one MACE (p=0.330). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of rates of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization (2.1% vs. 2.0%, 0.7% vs. 0.8%, and 11.7% vs. 10.1%, respectively; p=0.822, 0.910, and 0.301, respectively). The MACE rate was higher in the incompletely revascularized patients than in the completely revascularized patients (15% vs. 9.5%, p=0.039), and the difference was attributable to a higher rate of nontarget vessel revascularization (8.6% vs. 1.8%, p=0.002). Conclusion Although multivessel angioplasty during primary PCI for STEMI did not reduce the MACE rate compared with culprit-vessel-only PCI, CR was associated with a lower rate of repeat revascularization after multivessel PCI.

A Novel Biomarker of Coronary Atherosclerosis: Serum DKK1 Concentration Correlates with Coronary Artery Calcification and Atherosclerotic Plaques

DKK1 modulates Wnt signaling, which is involved in the atherosclerosis. However, no data exist regarding the usefulness of measuring serum DKK1 concentration in predicting coronary atherosclerosis. A total of 270 consecutive patients (62.8 ± 11.2 yr; 70% male) were included. A contrast-enhanced 64-slice coronary MDCT was performed to identify the presence of atherosclerotic plaques. Agatston calcium scores (CS) were calculated to quantify the coronary artery calcification (CAC). DKK1 concentrations were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. For each subsequent DKK1 quartile, there was a significant increase in CAC (P = 0.004) and the number of segments with coronary atherosclerosis (P < 0.001). In addition, DKK1 concentration was significantly higher in patients with atherosclerotic plaques, regardless of plaque composition (P = 0.01). Multivariate analysis identified DKK1 as an independent risk factor for the presence of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. The adjusted odds ratio for coronary atherosclerotic plaque was 4.88 (95% CI, 1.67 to 14.25) for highest versus lowest quartile of the DKK1 levels. Furthermore, patients with DKK1 concentrations ≥ 68.6 pg/mL demonstrated coronary atherosclerotic plaques even when they had low CS. Serum DKK1 concentrations correlate with the coronary atherosclerosis and play an independent role in predicting the presence of coronary atherosclerosis.

Low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents

BACKGROUND Whether low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is superior to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DESs) remains unclear. METHODS A total of 3,372 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI with DESs received either LMWH (n = 1,531 patients, subcutaneous enoxaparin 1 mg/kg, bid for 3-5 days plus reduced dose of UFH [50 U/kg] during PCI) or UFH alone (n = 1,841 patients, intravenous bolus injection of 5,000 U, followed by 24,000 U/d infusion for at least 48 hours). The bleeding events and clinical outcomes during in-hospital and at 8 months were compared. RESULTS The incidences of major and minor bleeding events were similar between the 2 groups. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that LMWH group had lower incidences of cardiac death (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.77, P < .001), total death (adjusted OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37-0.68, P < .001), and total major adverse cardiac events (adjusted OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.95, P = .017) at 8 months as compared with UFH group. Similar results were obtained across different subgroups including different DESs, age, and sex. CONCLUSIONS The LMWH enoxaparin combined with reduced dose of UFH (50 U/kg) administration as an adjunctive antithrombotic therapy in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI with DESs seems to be safe and efficacious. However, randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm this conclusion.

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 Effects of Hypertension on the Mortality of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

The incidence of ischemic heart disease has been increased rapidly in Korea. However, the clinical effects of antecedent hypertension on acute myocardial infarction have not been identified. We assessed the relationship between antecedent hypertension and clinical outcomes in 7,784 patients with acute myocardial infarction in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry during one-year follow-up. Diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, and peripheral artery disease were more prevalent in hypertensives (n=3,775) than nonhypertensives (n=4,009). During hospitalization, hypertensive patients suffered from acute renal failure, shock, and cerebrovascular event more frequently than in nonhypertensives. During follow-up of one-year, the incidence of major adverse cardiac events was higher in hypertensives. In multi-variate adjustment, old age, Killip class ≥III, left ventricular ejection fraction <45%, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg on admission, post procedural TIMI flow grade ≤2, female sex, and history of hypertension were independent predictors for in-hospital mortality. However antecedent hypertension was not significantly associated with one-year mortality. Hypertension at the time of acute myocardial infarction is associated with an increased rate of in-hospital mortality.