Junghan Yoon

Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND The potential benefits and risks of the use of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond a 12-month period in patients receiving drug-eluting stents have not been clearly established. METHODS In two trials, we randomly assigned a total of 2701 patients who had received drug-eluting stents and had been free of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events and major bleeding for a period of at least 12 months to receive clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction or death from cardiac causes. Data from the two trials were merged for analysis. RESULTS The median duration of follow-up was 19.2 months. The cumulative risk of the primary outcome at 2 years was 1.8% with dual antiplatelet therapy, as compared with 1.2% with aspirin monotherapy (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 3.36; P=0.17). The individual risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, need for repeat revascularization, major bleeding, and death from any cause did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, in the dual-therapy group as compared with the aspirin-alone group, there was a nonsignificant increase in the composite risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.99 to 3.00; P=0.051) and in the composite risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiac causes (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.99 to 3.45; P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS The use of dual antiplatelet therapy for a period longer than 12 months in patients who had received drug-eluting stents was not significantly more effective than aspirin monotherapy in reducing the rate of myocardial infarction or death from cardiac causes. These findings should be confirmed or refuted through larger, randomized clinical trials with longer-term follow-up. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00484926 and NCT00590174.)

Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents With Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization The ZEST (Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent with Sirolimus-Eluting and PacliTaxel-Eluting Stent for Coronary Lesions) Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in comparison with the established and widely used sirolimus- (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in routine clinical practice. BACKGROUND Whether ZES might provide similar clinical and angiographic outcomes in a broad spectrum of patients compared with SES or PES is undetermined. METHODS We performed a single-blind, multicenter, prospectively randomized trial to compare ZES with SES and PES in 2,645 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) at 12 months. A noninferiority comparison (ZES vs. SES) and a superiority comparison (ZES vs. PES) were performed for the primary end point. RESULTS Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar in the 3 groups. At 12 months, the ZES group showed noninferior rates of MACE compared with the SES group (10.2% vs. 8.3%, p for noninferiority = 0.01, p for superiority = 0.17) and significantly fewer MACE than the PES group (10.2% vs. 14.1%, p for superiority = 0.01). The incidence of death or myocardial infarction was similar among the groups (ZES vs. SES vs. PES, 5.8% vs. 6.9% vs. 7.6%, respectively, p = 0.31). The incidence of stent thrombosis was significantly lower in the SES group (ZES vs. SES vs. PES, 0.7% vs. 0% vs. 0.8%, respectively, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS In this large-scale, practical randomized trial, the use of ZES resulted in similar rates of MACE compared with SES and in fewer MACE compared with PES at 12 months. (Comparison of the Efficacy and the Safety of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent and PacliTaxel-Eluting Stent for Coronary Lesions; NCT00418067).

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Zotarolimus-, Sirolimus-, and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are increasingly used for treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but there are few comparisons of outcomes of various types of DES. We compared the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZESs), sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs), and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in primary intervention for STEMI. This multicenter, prospectively randomized ZEST-AMI trial included 328 patients at 12 medical centers who were randomly assigned to ZES (n = 108), SES (n = 110), or PES (n = 110) deployment. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (death, MI, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) at 12 months. Secondary end points included the individual components of the primary end point, late loss, angiographic restenosis, and stent thrombosis. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were well matched. In-segment late loss (0.28 +/- 0.42 vs 0.46 +/- 0.48 vs 0.47 +/- 0.50 mm, respectively, p = 0.029) and restenosis rate (2.7% vs 15.9% vs 12.3%, respectively, p = 0.027) at 8 months were lowest in the SES group compared to the ZES and PES groups. At 12 months, cumulative incidence rates of primary end points in the ZES, SES, and PES groups were 11.3%, 8.2%, and 8.2%, respectively (p = 0.834). There were 2 acute (in the SES group) and 5 subacute (2 in the SES group and 3 in the PES group) stent thromboses. Incidence of death, recurrent MI, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization did not differ among the 3 groups. In conclusion, despite the difference in restenosis rate, the efficacy and safety of the 3 different DESs showed similar, acceptable results in the treatment of STEMI.

A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Trial for the Safety and Efficacy of Adult Mesenchymal Stem Cells after Acute Myocardial Infarction

Recent studies suggest that the intracoronary administration of bone marrow (BM)-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may improve left ventricular function in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, there is still argumentative for the safety and efficacy of MSCs in the AMI setting. We thus performed a randomized pilot study to investigate the safety and efficacy of MSCs in patients with AMI. Eighty patients with AMI after successful reperfusion therapy were randomly assigned and received an intracoronary administration of autologous BM-derived MSCs into the infarct related artery at 1 month. During follow-up period, 58 patients completed the trial. The primary endpoint was changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) at 6 month. We also evaluated treatment-related adverse events. The absolute improvement in the LVEF by SPECT at 6 month was greater in the BM-derived MSCs group than in the control group (5.9%±8.5% vs 1.6%±7.0%; P=0.037). There was no treatment-related toxicity during intracoronary administration of MSCs. No significant adverse cardiovascular events occurred during follow-up. In conclusion, the intracoronary infusion of human BM-derived MSCs at 1 month is tolerable and safe with modest improvement in LVEF at 6-month follow-up by SPECT. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01392105)

Comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent, paclitaxel-eluting stent, and bare metal stent in the treatment of long coronary lesions

Objective: This study compared the efficacy of the sirolimus‐eluting stent (SES), the paclitaxel‐eluting stent (PES), and the bare metal stent (BMS) for long coronary lesions. Background: The outcome of drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation in long coronary lesions remains unclear. Methods: The study involved 527 patients with de novo long coronary lesions (≥24 mm), which were treated with long (≥28 mm) SESs (223 lesions), PESs (194 lesions), or BMSs (201 lesions). Results: Lesions in the SES (36.0 ± 14.9 mm, P < 0.001) and PES (36.3 ± 14.5 mm, P < 0.001) groups were longer than those in the BMS group (32.0 ± 12.3 mm), meaning the two DES groups had longer stented segments than did the BMS group. Six‐month angiographic follow‐up showed the SES (9.3%, P < 0.001) and PES (21.3%, P < 0.001) groups had lower in‐segment restenosis rates than that of the BMS group (42.5%). The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 9 months was higher in the BMS group (26.6%) than that in the SES (13.0%, P < 0.001) and PES (15.7%, P < 0.001) groups. Posthoc analysis of the two DES groups showed that the in‐segment restenosis rate was lower for the SES than that for the PES group (P = 0.002), while the MACE rate was similar. Conclusions: The use of DESs for long coronary lesions appears to be safe and more effective than the use of BMSs in terms of restenosis and adverse clinical events. SES use was associated with lower late luminal loss and a lower angiographic restenosis rate compared with PES use.

Different prognostic significance of high on-treatment platelet reactivity as assessed by the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay after coronary stenting in patients with and without acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES This study compared the prognostic role of high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) in predicting thrombotic events in a Korean population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and non-AMI setting. BACKGROUND The prognostic significance and optimal cutoff of HTPR might differ according to a given clinical condition, such as AMI and ethnicity. METHODS On-treatment platelet reactivity was measured with a VerifyNow P2Y12 assay (Accumetrics, San Diego, California) in 1,226 patients (824 men; age 65 ± 10 years), including 413 AMI cases, 12 to 24 h after PCI between March 2008 and March 2010. The prevalence of cardiovascular (CV) events defined as a composite of death from CV causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up were compared according to HTPR between patients with and without AMI. RESULTS The optimal cutoff for HTPR was 272 IU of the P2Y(12) reaction unit (PRU) (area under the curve: 0.708; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.607 to 0.809, p = 0.03), which was the upper-tertile threshold. Among AMI patients, 1-year CV events occurred more frequently in patients with versus without HTPR (n = 14 [8.8%] vs. n = 1 [0.4%], p < 0.001), whereas there was no difference in the composite endpoint on the basis of HTPR in patients without AMI (n = 7 [2.8%] vs. n = 8 [1.4%], p = 0.193). CONCLUSIONS Increased residual platelet reactivity is related to post-discharge CV events in subjects with AMI, whereas the prognostic significance of HTPR seems to be attenuated in patients with stable coronary disease after PCI.

Procedural outcomes of repeated transradial coronary procedure

We evaluated the changes in radial arterial diameter and the procedural outcomes of repeated transradial procedures through the same radial artery in 117 cases. No significant differences were found in the mean diameter of the radial artery between preprocedure and 1 day after procedure on initial and repeated procedures. However, the mean radial arterial diameter was significantly decreased from 2.63 ± 0.35 to 2.51 ± 0.29 mm during follow‐up after the initial procedure (P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in the vascular access times of the initial and repeated procedures (2.9 ± 3.1 vs. 3.3 ± 3.6 min; P = 0.08), and procedural success of repeated procedure was similar to those of the initial procedure. However, the incidence of radial arterial occlusion was higher for repeated procedures (2.6% vs. 0%; P = 0.01). We conclude that the repeated use of the radial artery is feasible in most patients with a high procedural success rate and low vascular complications. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2003;58:301–304.

Prospective Study of Serum Adiponectin and Incident Metabolic Syndrome: The ARIRANG study

OBJECTIVE Increased adiponectin levels may play a protective role in the development of metabolic abnormalities, but prospective studies of the predictive value of serum adiponectin to identify individuals at high risk of new-onset metabolic syndrome are lacking. We investigated whether serum adiponectin predicts incident cases of the metabolic syndrome in a population-based longitudinal study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A prospective cohort study was conducted of 2,044 adults (831 men and 1,213 women) aged 40–70 years without metabolic syndrome examined in 2005–2008 (baseline) and 2008–2011 (follow-up). Baseline serum adiponectin concentrations were measured by radioimmunoassay. RESULTS During an average of 2.6 years of follow-up, 153 men (18.4%) and 199 women (16.4%) developed metabolic syndrome. In multivariable-adjusted models, the odds ratio for incident metabolic syndrome comparing the highest with the lowest quartiles of adiponectin levels was 0.25 (95% CI 0.14–0.47) in men and 0.45 (0.28–0.74) in women. While serum adiponectin did not improve the area under the ROC curve for predicting new-onset metabolic syndrome based on information from metabolic syndrome components, the net reclassification improvement and the integrated discrimination improvement of prediction models including adiponectin were significantly higher compared with those of models not including adiponectin among men, with a significant difference between men and women (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Increased adiponectin is an independent protective factor for incident metabolic syndrome in men and women, and it may have a clinical role in predicting new-onset metabolic syndrome among men.

Guidewire-induced coronary artery perforation treated with transcatheter injection of polyvinyl alcohol form

We describe a first case of successful transcatheter management of guidewire‐induced distal coronary artery perforation and impending cardiac tamponade, which developed during percutaneous coronary angioplasty, with transcatheter injection of polyvinyl alcohol form. This method may be an effective alternative in the management of distal coronary artery perforation requiring surgical repair.

Efficacy of Xience/promus versus Cypher in rEducing Late Loss after stENTing (EXCELLENT) trial: Study design and rationale of a Korean multicenter prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND The everolimus-eluting stent (EES) is a newly developed drug-eluting stent using the MULTILINK VISION stent platform combined with the drug everolimus contained in a polymer coating. Recently reported randomized trials have shown the noninferiority and subsequent superiority of the EES compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent regarding in-stent late loss (LL) at 180 days. However, there have been no studies comparing head to head the EES with the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), which has shown the least amount of LL among the previously released drug-eluting stent (DES). In addition, adjunctive antiplatelet therapy is a critical factor in optimizing long-term DES safety. Despite the recommendation of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology to maintain 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy, there have been no prospective randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different durations. STUDY DESIGN In the Efficacy of Xience/promus versus Cypher in rEducing Late Loss after stENTing (EXCELLENT) trial, approximately 1,400 patients are being prospectively and randomly assigned in a 2 x 2 factorial design according to the type of stent (EES vs SES) and the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (6 vs 12 months). The primary end point is in-segment LL at 9 months for comparison of type of stent, and the coprimary end point is target vessel failure at 12 months for comparison of dual antiplatelet therapy duration. SUMMARY The EXCELLENT trial is the largest study yet performed to directly compare the efficacy and safety of the EES versus the SES. In addition, this study will also address the issue of a 6- versus 12-month duration of dual antiplatelet therapy for post-percutaneous coronary intervention management.