Seung Uk Lee

Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: 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.

Comparison of Biolimus A9–Eluting (Nobori) and Everolimus-Eluting (Promus Element) Stents in Patients With De Novo Native Long Coronary Artery Lesions A Randomized Long Drug-Eluting Stent V Trial

Background—Procedural and clinical outcomes still remain unfavorable for patients with long coronary lesions who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. The current study, therefore, evaluated 2 innovative drug-eluting stents for the management of long-lesion coronary artery disease. Methods and Results—This randomized, multicenter, prospective trial, called the Long Drug-Eluting Stent (LONG-DES) V trial, compared the biodegradable polymer–based biolimus A9–eluting stent (BES) and the durable polymer–based platinum chromium everolimus-eluting stent (PtCr-EES) in 500 patients with long (≥25 mm) coronary lesions. The primary end point of the trial was in-segment late luminal loss at the 9-month angiographic follow-up. The BES and PtCr-EES groups had similar baseline characteristics, with a slightly shorter lesion length in the BES group versus the PtCr-EES group (29.24±12.17 versus 32.27±13.84 mm; P=0.016). In-segment late luminal loss was comparable between the 2 groups at the 9-month angiographic follow-up (BES, 0.14±0.38 versus PtCr-EES, 0.11±0.37 mm; difference, 0.031; 95% confidence interval, −0.053 to 0.091; P=0.03 for a noninferiority margin of 0.11, P=0.45 for superiority), as was in-stent late luminal loss (0.20±0.41 versus 0.24±0.38 mm; P=0.29). The incidence of in-segment (6.1% versus 4.9%; P=0.63) and in-stent (3.7% versus 4.9%; P=0.59) binary restenosis was also similar between the groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (41, 16.7% in BES versus 42, 16.5% in PtCr-EES; P=0.94). Conclusions—BES and PtCr-EES implantation showed analogous angiographic and clinical outcomes for patients with de novo long coronary lesions. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01186120.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial: harmonising optimal strategy for treatment of coronary artery stenosis — coronary intervention with next-generation drug-eluting stent platforms and abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy (HOST-IDEA) trial

Introduction We have recently seen the introduction of newer generation drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts that use advanced polymer technologies. However, the efficacy and safety of these newest stents have not yet been fully explored. In addition, there are still controversies over the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stent implantation, particularly for ultrathin stents with the newest polymer technologies. Methods and analysis The HOST-IDEA trial is a randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority trial and the first study to directly compare two of these ultrathin sirolimus-eluting stents: Orsiro stent with biodegradable polymer, and polymer-free Coroflex ISAR (CX-ISAR) stent. This study has a scheme of 2×2 factorial design according to the stent type and DAPT duration (3 vs 12 months). A total of 2152 patients will be randomised and stratified to demonstrate the non-inferiority of CX-ISAR to Orsiro, or of the abbreviated DAPT duration to the conventional 12 months (both in 1:1 ratio). For the comparison of stent type, the primary endpoint is target lesion failure (TLF), which is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction and clinically driven target lesion revascularisation. For the comparison of DAPT duration, the net adverse clinical event is the coprimary endpoint, which is defined as a composite of TLF, definite/probable stent thrombosis and major bleeding. Ethic approval and dissemination All the institutions involved in this study are required to have ethical approval prior to patient enrolment. This multicentre study will recruit patients through competitive registration, but institutions that have not yet obtained ethical approvals have made it impossible to enrol patients in a centralised web database. The final results will be presented at relevant international conferences and will be materialised in the form of papers. Trial registration number NCT02601157; Pre-results.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of the Lercanidipine/Valsartan Combination in Korean Patients With Essential Hypertension Not Adequately Controlled With Lercanidipine Monotherapy: A Randomized, Multicenter, Parallel Design, Phase III Clinical Trial

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the lercanidipine/valsartan combination compared with lercanidipine monotherapy in patients with hypertension. METHODS Part 1 of this study was the randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, Phase III, 8-week clinical trial to compare superiority of lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 80 mg (L10/V80) and lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L10/V160) combinations with lercanidipine 10 mg (L10) monotherapy. At screening, hypertensive patients, whose diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was >90 mm Hg after 4 weeks with L10, were randomized to 3 groups of L10, L10/V80, and L10/V160. The primary end point was the change in the mean sitting DBP from baseline (week 0) after 8 weeks of therapy. Patients who were randomly assigned to L10/V160 and whose mean DBP was still ≥ 90 mm Hg in part 1 were enrolled to the up-titration extension study with lercanidipine 20 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L20/V160) (part 2). FINDINGS Of 772 patients screened, 497 were randomized to 3 groups (166 in the L10 group, 168 in the L10/V80 group, and 163 in the L10/V160 group). Mean (SD) age was 55 (9.9) years, and male patients comprised 69%. The mean (SD) baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP were 148.4 (15.1)/94.3 (9.5) mm Hg. No significant differences were found between groups in baseline characteristics except the percentages of previous history of antihypertensive medication. The primary end points, the changes of mean (SD) DBP at week 8 from the baseline were -2.0 (8.8) mm Hg in the L10 group, -6.7 (8.5) mm Hg in L10/V80 group, and -8.1 (8.4) mm Hg in L10/V160 group. The adjusted mean difference between the combination groups and the L10 monotherapy group was -4.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -6.5 to -2.6; P < 0.001) in the L10/V80 group and -5.9 mm Hg (95% CI, -7.9 to -4.0, P < 0.001) in the L10/V160 group, which had significantly greater efficacy in BP lowering. A total of 74 patients were enrolled in the part 2 extension study. Changes of mean (SD) DBP and SBP from week 8 to week 12 and week 16 were -5.6 (7.9)/-8.0 (12.0) mm Hg and -5.5 (7.0)/-8.5 (11.3) mm Hg, respectively. For evaluation of the safety profile, the frequencies of adverse events between groups were also not significantly different. The most frequently reported adverse events were headache (6 cases, 20.7%) in the L10 group, dizziness (8 cases, 16.3%) in L10/V80 group, and nasopharyngitis (3 cases, 9.4%) in L10/V160 group, and the incidences of adverse events were not different between groups. IMPLICATIONS Treatment of L10/V80 or L10/V160 combination therapy resulted in significantly greater BP lowering compared with L10 monotherapy. Moreover, the L20/V160 high dose combination had additional BP lowering effect compared with nonresponders with the L10/V160 combination. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01928628.

Clinical Outcomes of Elderly Patients with Non ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of the elderly patients with Non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) compared to non-elderly patients. Patients with NSTEMI and undergoing CABG (n=451) who were registered in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry between December 2003 and August 2012 were divided into two groups.; the non-elderly group (<75 years, n=327) and the elderly group (≥75 years, n=124). In-hospital mortality was higher in the elderly group (4.9% vs. 11.3%, p=0.015), but cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, percutaneous revascularization, and redo-CABG after a one-year follow up were not different between the two groups. Predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with NSTEMI undergoing CABG were left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤40%) [hazard ratio (HR): 2.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16–6.57, p=0.022] and age (HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01–1.10, p=0.047). So elderly NSTEMI patients should be considered for CABG if appropriate, but careful consideration for surgery is required, especially if the patients have severe LV systolic dysfunction.

Safety and Efficacy of the Endeavor Resolute® Stent in Patients with Multivessel Disease: The HEART (Honam EndeAvor ResoluTe) Prospective, Multicenter Trial

The Endeavor Resolute® (ER) is a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with a biocompatible BioLinx polymer. This study prospectively compared the clinical outcomes of 2 versions of ZES, ER and Endeavor Sprint® (ES), in patients with multivessel disease. A total of 488 patients who underwent multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were divided into 2 groups the ER group (n=288) and the ES group (n=200). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization after 12 months. In all patients, the prevalence of diabetes was higher in the ER group (42.7% vs. 31.0%, p=0.009). The rate of post-PCI Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3 was higher in the ER group (100.0% vs. 98.0%, p=0.028). There were no between-group differences in the in-hospital, 1-month and 12-month clinical outcomes. In the propensity score matched cohort (n=200 in each group), no differences were observed in the baseline and procedural characteristics. There were no statistical differences in the rates of in-hospital, 1-month and 12-month events (12-month MACE in the ER and ES groups: 6.0% vs. 3.5%, p=0.240, respectively). The safety and efficacy of both versions of ZES were comparable in patients with multivessel disease during a 12-month clinical follow-up.

Comparison of Fixed-dose Combinations of Amlodipine/Losartan Potassium/Chlorthalidone and Amlodipine/Losartan Potassium in Patients With Stage 2 Hypertension Inadequately Controlled With Amlodipine/Losartan Potassium: A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter, Phase III Study

PURPOSE The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine/losartan potassium/chlorthalidone (A/L/C) and A/L in Korean patients with stage 2 hypertension inadequately controlled by A/L. METHODS This study was an 8-week, randomized double-blind, multicenter, phase III clinical trial. Three hundred forty volunteer patients with stage 2 hypertension were randomized to receive A/L/C or A/L. The primary end point was a change in sitting systolic blood pressure (SitSBP) after 8 weeks of treatment. As secondary end points, the change in SitSBP after 2 weeks of treatment and the change in sitting diastolic blood pressure (SitDBP) were compared between treatment groups. All patients were assessed for adverse events, clinical laboratory data, and vital signs. FINDINGS Of 330 patients from 33 medical centers, 328 patients who had available efficacy data were analyzed. After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, the mean (SD) changes in SitSBP at 8 weeks were -16.4 (0.9) mm Hg and -6.9 (1.0) mm Hg in the A/L/C and A/L groups, respectively. A/L/C had a statistically superior blood pressure-lowering effect compared with that of A/L (mean [SD] difference, 9.5 [1.3] mm Hg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) change in SitDBP at 8 weeks was significantly greater with A/L/C (-8.0 [0.6] mm Hg) than with A/L (-3.6 [0.6] mm Hg) (P < .001). In terms of the mean (SD) change in SitDBP at 2 weeks compared with baseline, A/L/C (-5.9 [0.5] mm Hg) was statistically different from A/L (-2.9 [0.5] mm Hg) (P < .001). Mean (SD) SitSBP change from baseline to week 2 was -13.2 (0.9) and -5.5 (0.9) in the A/L/C and A/L groups, respectively, with a statistically significant blood pressure-lowering effect (P < 0.001). The number of participants who achieved target blood pressure at week 8 was significantly higher in the A/L/C group (93 patients [55.7%]) than in the A/L group (48 [29.8%]) (P < 0.001). Adverse drug reactions were observed in 23 patients (7.0%), and the incidence of dizziness was significantly higher in the A/L/C group than in the A/L group (4.8% vs 0.6%, P = 0.037) There were no serious adverse events associated with the study drugs. IMPLICATIONS The results of this study suggest that A/L/C had a significantly increased blood pressure-lowering efficacy compared with that of A/L and had a good safety profile. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02916602.

Multivessel spontaneous coronary artery dissection presenting as acute myocardial infarction

Copyright

Response to Letter Regarding Article, “Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: A Randomized, Controlled Trial”

We thank Dr Sardar and colleagues for their interest in our recent article1 and appreciate the opportunity to reply. We agree that medication adherence is associated with clinical outcomes and remains an important issue in clinical drug trials. Unfortunately, there are no definite methods for assessing adherence to medications. In our study, pill count was used to determine medication adherence, and pharmacy data were electronically checked by medical insurance system. Medical adherence in this type of study is considered generally poor. Even in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcome (PLATO) trial, medical adherence was ≈80%.2 In this context, we believe that medical adherence in our study seems to be acceptable. Time from index procedure to randomization was rather variable, but most patients were enrolled between 12 …