Jin Ok Jeong

Predictors and Outcomes of Side Branch Occlusion After Main Vessel Stenting in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: Results From the COBIS II Registry (COronary BIfurcation Stenting)

OBJECTIVES This study sought to investigate the predictors and outcomes of side branch (SB) occlusion after main vessel (MV) stenting in coronary bifurcation lesions. BACKGROUND SB occlusion is a serious complication that occurs during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for bifurcation lesions. METHODS Consecutive patients undergoing PCI using drug-eluting stents for bifurcation lesions with SB ≥2.3 mm were enrolled. We selected patients treated with the 1-stent technique or MV stenting first strategy. SB occlusion after MV stenting was defined as Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade <3. RESULTS SB occlusion occurred in 187 (8.4%) of 2,227 bifurcation lesions. In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of SB occlusion were pre-procedural percent diameter stenosis of the SB ≥50% (odds ratio [OR]: 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.59 to 3.43; p < 0.001) and the proximal MV ≥50% (OR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.57 to 3.50; p < 0.001), SB lesion length (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.003 to 1.06; p = 0.03), and acute coronary syndrome (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.06 to 2.19; p = 0.02). Of 187 occluded SBs, flow was restored spontaneously in 26 (13.9%) and by SB intervention in 103 (55.1%) but not in 58 (31.0%). Jailed wire in the SB was associated with flow recovery (74.8% vs. 57.8%, p = 0.02). Cardiac death or myocardial infarction occurred more frequently in patients with SB occlusion than in those without SB occlusion (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.15 to 4.77; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Angiographic findings of SB, proximal MV stenosis, and clinical presentation are predictive of SB occlusion after MV stenting. Occlusion of sizable SB is associated with adverse clinical outcomes..

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Final Kissing Ballooning in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated With the 1-Stent Technique: Results From the COBIS II Registry (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry).

OBJECTIVES This study investigated the impact of final kissing ballooning (FKB) after main vessel (MV) stenting on outcomes in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions after application of the 1-stent technique. BACKGROUND Although FKB has been established as the standard method for bifurcation lesions treated with a 2-stent strategy, its efficacy in a 1-stent approach is highly controversial. METHODS This study enrolled 1,901 patients with a bifurcation lesion with a side branch diameter ≥2.3 mm, treated solely with the 1-stent technique using a drug-eluting stent from 18 centers in Korea between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2009. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE)-cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. Propensity score-matching analysis was also performed. RESULTS FKB was performed in 620 patients and the post minimal lumen diameter of the MV and side branch was larger in the FKB group than in the non-FKB group. During follow-up (median 36 months), the incidence of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46 to 0.99; p = 0.048) was lower in the FKB group than the non-FKB group. After propensity score matching (545 pairs), the FKB group had a lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.85; p = 0.01), and target lesion revascularization in the MV (adjusted HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.93; p = 0.03) and both vessels (adjusted HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.90; p = 0.02) than in the non-FKB group. CONCLUSIONS In coronary bifurcation lesions, we demonstrated that the 1-stent technique with FKB was associated with a favorable long-term clinical outcome, mainly driven by the reduction of target lesion revascularization in the MV or both vessels as a result of an increase in minimal lumen diameter. (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry II [COBIS II]: NCT01642992).

Genetic Testing of Korean Familial Hypercholesterolemia Using Whole-Exome Sequencing

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a genetic disorder with an increased risk of early-onset coronary artery disease. Although some clinically diagnosed FH cases are caused by mutations in LDLR, APOB, or PCSK9, mutation detection rates and profiles can vary across ethnic groups. In this study, we aimed to provide insight into the spectrum of FH-causing mutations in Koreans. Among 136 patients referred for FH, 69 who met Simon Broome criteria with definite family history were enrolled. By whole-exome sequencing (WES) analysis, we confirmed that the 3 known FH-related genes accounted for genetic causes in 23 patients (33.3%). A substantial portion of the mutations (19 of 23 patients, 82.6%) resulted from 17 mutations and 2 copy number deletions in LDLR gene. Two mutations each in the APOB and PCSK9 genes were verified. Of these anomalies, two frameshift deletions in LDLR and one mutation in PCSK9 were identified as novel causative mutations. In particular, one novel mutation and copy number deletion were validated by co-segregation in their relatives. This study confirmed the utility of genetic diagnosis of FH through WES.

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.

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination therapy with olmesartan medoxomil and rosuvastatin in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension and dyslipidemia: an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, factorial-design study (OLSTA-D RCT: OLmesartan rosuvaSTAtin from Daewoong)

The pill burden of patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia can result in poor medication compliance. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with olmesartan medoxomil (40 mg) and rosuvastatin (20 mg) in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension and dyslipidemia. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, factorial-design study included patients aged ≥20 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension and dyslipidemia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive FDC therapy (40 mg olmesartan medoxomil, 20 mg rosuvastatin), 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil, 20 mg rosuvastatin, or a placebo. The percentage change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was compared between FDC therapy and olmesartan medoxomil, and the change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure was compared between FDC therapy and rosuvastatin 8 weeks after treatment. A total of 162 patients were included. The least square mean percentage change (standard error) from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 8 weeks after treatment was significantly greater in the FDC than in the olmesartan medoxomil group (−52.3% [2.8%] vs −0.6% [3.5%], P<0.0001), and the difference was −51.7% (4.1%) (95% confidence interval: −59.8% to −43.6%). The least square mean change (standard error) from baseline in diastolic blood pressure 8 weeks after treatment was significantly greater in the FDC group than in the rosuvastatin group (−10.4 [1.2] mmHg vs 0.1 [1.6] mmHg, P<0.0001), and the difference was −10.5 (1.8) mmHg (95% confidence interval: −14.1 to −6.9 mmHg). There were 50 adverse events in 41 patients (22.7%) and eight adverse drug reactions in five patients (2.8%). The study found that FDC therapy with olmesartan medoxomil and rosuvastatin is an effective, safe treatment for patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia. This combination may improve medication compliance in patients with a large pill burden.

Improved expression by cytomegalovirus promoter/enhancer and behavior of vascular endothelial growth factor gene after myocardial injection of naked DNA

Direct injection of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene plasmid DNA into the myocardium was shown to induce development of new blood vessels to increase the circulation in the heart of patients with coronary artery diseases. However, such angiogenic gene therapy (via naked DNA) was limited by low level of gene expression. Furthermore, the temporal and spatial characteristics of VEGF gene transfer in the heart are not known. In this study, we demonstrated that a plasmid vector, containing the human cytomegalovirus immediate early (HCMV IE) promoter and enhancer, induces greater expression of gene in the rat heart monitored by gene fused to the chloramphenicol acetyl transferase (CAT) reporter, than four different viral and cellular promoters. Interestingly, expression of VEGF121 protein showed an earlier peak, a shorter duration, and a wider distribution than that of CAT only. Therefore, a plasmid vector with an HCMV IE promoter/enhancer provides clear advantages over other previously developed plasmids. Furthermore, expression profile of VEGF121 gene may provide useful information in the design of angiogenic gene therapy in the heart

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.

Impact of non-compliant balloons on long-term clinical outcomes in coronary bifurcation lesions: Results from the COBIS (COronary BIfurcation Stent) II registry

AIMS Non-compliant balloons provide uniform radial force along the vessel wall at any inflation pressure. As a result, the use of non-compliant balloons may reduce side branch complications and optimise stent deployment. We sought to investigate the impact of non-compliant balloons on the long-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing a coronary bifurcation intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 2,897 patients treated with drug-eluting stents for bifurcation lesions were enrolled. Non-compliant balloons were used in 752 patients (26%). During a median three-year follow-up, major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation) occurred less frequently in the non-compliant balloon group than in the compliant balloon group (8.2% versus 10.9%; p=0.03). After propensity score matching (710 pairs), the use of non-compliant balloons resulted in a lower rate of side branch dissection (0.1% versus 1.1%; p=0.046) and a higher rate of procedural success (79.0% versus 73.9%; p=0.01). The use of non-compliant balloons was associated with a lower risk of MACE (HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.91; p=0.01) and cardiac death (HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.03-0.64; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS The use of non-compliant balloons was associated with favourable procedural and long-term clinical outcomes in patients receiving coronary bifurcation intervention.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Telmisartan/Amlodipine + Hydrochlorothiazide Versus Telmisartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy for Essential Hypertension Uncontrolled With Telmisartan/Amlodipine: The Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind TAHYTI Study

PURPOSE This 8-week study in Korea aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a telmisartan/amlodipine + hydrochlorothiazide (TAH) combination versus telmisartan/amlodipine (TA) combination in patients with essential hypertension that did not respond appropriately to 4-week treatment with TA. METHODS All patients who met the inclusion criteria received TA (40/5 mg) during a 4-week run-in period (period 1). Patients who met the criteria for essential hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP], ≥140 and <200 mm Hg, or ≥130 and<200 mm Hg in those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease) after period 1 were randomly assigned to receive TA 40/5 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (test group) or TA only (control group). The test and control drugs were administered in each group for 2 weeks (period 2). Patients who completed period 2 underwent 6-week treatment (period 3) with a TAH and TA dose twice that in period 2. The primary end point was the change in MSSBP at week 8 of treatment. Secondary end points were the change in MSSBP at week 2 and MS diastolic BP, BP control rate, and BP response rate at weeks 2 and 8. Treatment tolerability was assessed based on adverse events (AEs), laboratory evaluations (chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis), 12-lead ECG, and physical examination including vital sign measurements. FINDINGS We randomized 310 patients to the treatment groups. The mean (SD) ages of the TAH and TA groups were 62.0 (10.8) and 63.4 (10.4) years, respectively. The least squares mean change in MSSBP was significantly greater in the TAH group than in the TA group after 8 weeks (-18.7 vs -12.2 mm Hg; P < 0.001). Similar results were obtained on changes in MSSBP after 2 weeks and changes in sitting diastolic BP, BP control rate, and BP response rate at weeks 2 and 8 compared with the respective baseline values. The prevalences of treatment-emergent AEs (29.0% vs 16.3%; P = 0.008) and adverse drug reactions (20.0% vs 10.5%; P = 0.020) were significantly greater in the TAH group than in the TA group. Most treatment-emergent AEs were mild or moderate; none were severe. The most frequently reported AEs were dizziness and headache. IMPLICATION TAH triple therapy was more effective than was TA double therapy in reducing BP in these patients in Korea with essential hypertension that did not adequately respond to TA. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02738632.

Valsartan 160 mg/Amlodipine 5 mg Combination Therapy versus Amlodipine 10 mg in Hypertensive Patients with Inadequate Response to Amlodipine 5 mg Monotherapy

Background and Objectives When monotherapy is inadequate for blood pressure control, the next step is either to continue monotherapy in increased doses or to add another antihypertensive agent. However, direct comparison of double-dose monotherapy versus combination therapy has rarely been done. The objective of this study is to compare 10 mg of amlodipine with an amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg combination in patients whose blood pressure control is inadequate with amlodipine 5 mg. Subjects and Methods This study was conducted as a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Men and women aged 20-80 who were diagnosed as having hypertension, who had been on amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy for at least 4 weeks, and whose daytime mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥135 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥85 mmHg on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were randomized to amlodipine (A) 10 mg or amlodipine/valsartan (AV) 5/160 mg group. Follow-up 24-hour ABPM was done at 8 weeks after randomization. Results Baseline clinical characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups. Ambulatory blood pressure reduction was significantly greater in the AV group compared with the A group (daytime mean SBP change: -14±11 vs. -9±9 mmHg, p<0.001, 24-hour mean SBP change: -13±10 vs. -8±8 mmHg, p<0.0001). Drug-related adverse events also did not differ significantly (A:AV, 6.5 vs. 4.5 %, p=0.56). Conclusion Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg combination was more efficacious than amlodipine 10 mg in hypertensive patients in whom monotherapy of amlodipine 5 mg had failed.