Keun Lee

THE CRYING PATTERN OF KOREAN INFANTS AND RELATED FACTORS

In.a study of 160 Korean infants aged between one and six months, average time spent sleeping decreased, and total daily maternal periods of contact increased, with age (though not significantly). The increment of total periods spent by the infant alone was significant, but the decrease of crying duration was not. There was no definite clustering of crying during the evening hours. The most common responses of mothers towards their babys crying were feeding, contact and no response, in order of frequency. Compared with Western studies, the duration of crying of Korean infants was shorter and the time of holding and/or close contact with mothers longer, and colic was not found in this study. These findings may be related to the caring practice of mothers.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel-eluting coroflex please stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: A randomized PIPA trial†

Objectives: To compare the safety and efficacy of the new Coroflex™ Please stents with conventional Taxus™ Liberte stents in patients with coronary artery lesions. Background: The Coroflex™ Please stent is a new version of paclitaxel‐eluting stent, and observational cohort studies have reported similar angiographic and clinical outcomes as with the first‐generation stents. However, it has not been directly compared with the early generation paclitaxel‐eluting stents in a multicenter, prospective, and randomized study. Methods: We randomly assigned 319 patients to receive Coroflex™ Please stents (159 patients; 198 lesions) or Taxus™ Liberte stents (160 patients; 232 lesions). The primary end point was angiographic in‐segment late luminal loss at 9 months. Results: Most baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between these two groups. The Coroflex™ Please and Taxus™ Liberte stents showed similar in‐segment late loss (0.40 ± 0.53 mm vs. 0.39 ± 0.52 mm, P = 0.98) and rates of in‐segment binary restenosis (22.2% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.48) at 9 months. After clinical follow‐up for 12 months, the two groups had similar rates of death (1.3% vs. 1.3%, P > 0.99), myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.22), stent thrombosis (2.5% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.72), and target‐lesion revascularization (7.5% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.99). Conclusions: The Coroflex™ Please stent resulted in similar angiographic and clinical outcomes as the Taxus™ Liberte stent in patients with coronary artery lesions.

Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy attributed to adult myotonic dystrophy.

In patients with myotonic dystrophy (MD), impairment of the conduction system is a common and progressive finding. However, only a few cases of MD with cardiomyopathy have been reported. Herein we report a case of MD with progressive non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe electrocardiographic abnormalities.

Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent ImplantationCLINICAL PERSPECTIVE: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Background— The risks and benefits of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy remain unclear. Methods and Results— This prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized comparison trial was conducted in 24 clinical centers in Korea. In total, 5045 patients who received drug-eluting stents and were free of major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding for at least 12 months after stent placement were enrolled between July 2007 and July 2011. Patients were randomized to receive aspirin alone (n=2514) or clopidogrel plus aspirin (n=2531). The primary end point was a composite of death resulting from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke 24 months after randomization. At 24 months, the primary end point occurred in 57 aspirin-alone group patients (2.4%) and 61 dual-therapy group patients (2.6%; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–1.35; P=0.75). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of the individual risks of death resulting from any cause, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke. Major bleeding occurred in 24 (1.1%) and 34 (1.4%) of the aspirin-alone group and dual-therapy group patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–1.20; P=0.20). Conclusions— Among patients who were on 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy without complications, an additional 24 months of dual antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin alone did not reduce the risk of the composite end point of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01186146.

Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent ImplantationCLINICAL PERSPECTIVE

Background— The risks and benefits of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy remain unclear. Methods and Results— This prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized comparison trial was conducted in 24 clinical centers in Korea. In total, 5045 patients who received drug-eluting stents and were free of major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding for at least 12 months after stent placement were enrolled between July 2007 and July 2011. Patients were randomized to receive aspirin alone (n=2514) or clopidogrel plus aspirin (n=2531). The primary end point was a composite of death resulting from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke 24 months after randomization. At 24 months, the primary end point occurred in 57 aspirin-alone group patients (2.4%) and 61 dual-therapy group patients (2.6%; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–1.35; P=0.75). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of the individual risks of death resulting from any cause, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke. Major bleeding occurred in 24 (1.1%) and 34 (1.4%) of the aspirin-alone group and dual-therapy group patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–1.20; P=0.20). Conclusions— Among patients who were on 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy without complications, an additional 24 months of dual antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin alone did not reduce the risk of the composite end point of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01186146.

COMPARISON OF THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF PACLITAXEL-ELUTING COROFLEXTM PLEASE STENT VERSUS PACLITAXEL-ELUTING STENT IN PATIENTS WITH CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE: THE PIPA RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Authors: Young-Hak Kim, Hyun-Sook Kim, Duk-Woo Park, Sang-Sig Cheong, Bong-Ki Lee, Seung-Wook Lee, Keun Lee, Nae-Hee Lee, Sang-Gon Lee, Chang Hoon Lee, Ki Won Hwang, Gyung-Min Park, Yong-Giun Kim, Jung-Min Ahn, Hae Geun Song, Won-Jang Kim, Jong-Young Lee, Soo-Jin Kang, Seung-Whan Lee, Cheol Whan Lee, Seong-Wook Park, Seung-Jung Park, Division of Cardiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, seoul, South Korea

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus (ESSENCE-DIABETES)Clinical Perspective: Results From the ESSENCE-DIABETES Trial

Background— Drug-eluting stents significantly improved angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare metal stents in diabetic patients. However, a comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients has not been evaluated. Therefore we compared effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results— This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared everolimus-eluting stent (n=149) and sirolimus-eluting stent (n=151) implantation in diabetic patients. The primary end point was noninferiority of angiographic in-segment late loss at 8 months. Clinical events were also monitored for at least 12 months. Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for 8-month in-segment late loss (0.23±0.27 versus 0.37±0.52 mm; difference, −0.13 mm; 95% confidence interval, −0.25 to −0.02; upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval, −0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority), with reductions in in-stent restenosis (0% versus 4.7%; P=0.029) and in-segment restenosis (0.9% versus 6.5%; P=0.035). However, in-stent late loss (0.11±0.26 versus 0.20±0.49 mm; P=0.114) was not statistically different between the 2 groups. At 12 months, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (0.7% versus 2.6%; P=0.317), death (1.3% versus 3.3%; P=0.448), and myocardial infarction (0% versus 1.3%; P=0.498) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.0% versus 5.3%; P=0.218), were also not statistically different between the 2 groups. Conclusions— Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in reducing in-segment late loss and reduced angiographic restenosis at 8 months in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00997763.

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for De Novo Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus (ESSENCE-DIABETES)Clinical Perspective

Background— Drug-eluting stents significantly improved angiographic and clinical outcomes compared with bare metal stents in diabetic patients. However, a comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients has not been evaluated. Therefore we compared effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results— This prospective, multicenter, randomized study compared everolimus-eluting stent (n=149) and sirolimus-eluting stent (n=151) implantation in diabetic patients. The primary end point was noninferiority of angiographic in-segment late loss at 8 months. Clinical events were also monitored for at least 12 months. Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for 8-month in-segment late loss (0.23±0.27 versus 0.37±0.52 mm; difference, −0.13 mm; 95% confidence interval, −0.25 to −0.02; upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval, −0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority), with reductions in in-stent restenosis (0% versus 4.7%; P=0.029) and in-segment restenosis (0.9% versus 6.5%; P=0.035). However, in-stent late loss (0.11±0.26 versus 0.20±0.49 mm; P=0.114) was not statistically different between the 2 groups. At 12 months, ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (0.7% versus 2.6%; P=0.317), death (1.3% versus 3.3%; P=0.448), and myocardial infarction (0% versus 1.3%; P=0.498) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.0% versus 5.3%; P=0.218), were also not statistically different between the 2 groups. Conclusions— Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in reducing in-segment late loss and reduced angiographic restenosis at 8 months in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00997763.