Natsuki Takahashi

Effect of remote ischemia or nicorandil on myocardial injury following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND The effect of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) and nicorandil on periprocedural myocardial injury (pMI) in patients with planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. The aim of this randomized trial was to evaluate the effect of RIPC or nicorandil on pMI following PCI in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with a control group. METHODS Patients with stable CAD who planned to undergo PCI were assigned to a 1:1:1 ratio to control, RIPC, or intravenous nicorandil (6mg/h). Automated RIPC was performed by a device, which performs intermittent arm ischemia through three cycles of 5min of inflation and 5min of deflation of a pressure cuff. The primary outcome was the incidence of pMI, determined by an elevation in high-sensitive troponin T or creatine kinase myocardial band at 12 or 24h after PCI. The secondary outcomes were ischemic events during PCI and adverse clinical events at 8months after PCI. RESULTS A total of 391 patients were enrolled. The incidence of pMI following PCI was not significantly different between the control group (48.9%) and RIPC group (39.5%; p=0.14), or between the control group and nicorandil group (40.3%; p=0.17). There were no significant differences in ischemic events during PCI or adverse clinical events within 8months after PCI among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated moderate reductions in biomarker release and pMI by RIPC or intravenous nicorandil prior to the PCI consistently, but may have failed to achieve statistical significance because the study was underpowered.

Effect of Intensive and Standard Pitavastatin Treatment With or Without Eicosapentaenoic Acid on Progression of Coronary Artery Calcification Over 12 Months ― Prospective Multicenter Study ―

BACKGROUND The effect of lipid-lowering agents on progression of coronary artery calcification (CAC) remains unclear. We evaluated the effects of pitavastatin 2 mg/day (PIT2), pitavastatin 4 mg/day (PIT4), and PIT2 combined with eicosapentaenoic acid (PIT2+EPA) on CAC progression.Methods and Results:This prospective multicenter study in Japan included patients with an Agatston score of 1-999, hypercholesterolemia, and no evidence of cardiovascular disease. Patients were allocated into PIT2, PIT4, or PIT2+EPA groups. The primary outcome was the annual percent change in Agatston score in all patients. In total, 156 patients who had multi-detector row computed tomography without any artifacts were included in the primary analysis. Pitavastatin did not significantly reduce the annual progression rate of the Agatston score (40%; 95% CI: 19-61%). The annual progression rate of Agatston score in the PIT2 group was not significantly different from that in the PIT4 group (34% vs. 42%, respectively; P=0.88) or the PIT2+EPA group (34% vs. 44%, respectively; P=0.80). On post-hoc analysis the baseline ratio of low- to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was a significant predictor of non-progression of Agatston score by pitavastatin (OR, 2.17; 95% CI: 1.10-44.12; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Pitavastatin does not attenuate progression of CAC. Intensive pitavastatin treatment and standard treatment with EPA does not reduce progression of CAC compared with standard treatment.