The clinical outcome of fractional flow reserve based coronary revascularization strategy of the patients on hemodialysis

Background

The optimal coronary revascularization strategy for the patients on hemodialysis is yet to be determined. In the real-world practice, we sometimes encounter the rapid deterioration after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to angiographically intermediate but functionally significant stenosis. According to the fractional flow reserve (FFR) based revascularization strategy, the clinical outcome of the deferred lesions is reported to be almost equivalent to that of the lesions received PCI. However, whether the relationship also applies to hemodialysis patients is unclear.

Purpose

To assess the clinical outcome of the lesions for which revascularization strategy was determined by FFR in patients with hemodialysis.

Methods

Consecutive 147 vessels in 120 patients with hemodialysis whose revascularization strategy was decided according to the FFR were enrolled in this study. We compared the clinical outcomes of the deferred group (FFR ≥0.80, 87 vessels, 78 patients) with the PCI group (FFR<0.80, 60 vessels, 42 patients). The primary endpoint of this study was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as a composite of TV revascularization and myocardial infarction evaluated by per-vessel analysis. The secondary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as all cause death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization evaluated by per-patient analysis.

Results

The median follow-up period was 2.3 years (interquartile range, 1.5–4.0 years). The beseline characteristics of the lesions and patients were well balanced between the 2 treatment groups except for the distribution of target vessels and FFR value. The cumulative TVF rate was not significantly different between the deferred group and PCI group (2-year event rate 26.7% vs. 17.7%; Log-rank p=0.23). The risk of MACE was also not significantly different between two groups (2-year event rate 35% vs. 30%; Log-rank p=0.48).

Conclusion

The clinical outcome of the lesions/patients for which received revascularization based on FFR was equivalent to the deferred lesions/patients even in the patients on hemodialysis (2,129/3,000).

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None. Table 1Figure 1

Aggressive lipid lowering therapy with pitavastatin and ezetimibe improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the HIJ-PROPER Study

Aims

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of aggressive lipid-lowering therapy with pitavastatin and ezetimibe in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as compared with those with other classification of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) including non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and unstable angina pectoris (UA).

Methods

This is a post hoc sub-analysis of the HIJ-PROPER study. In the original study, ACS patients with dyslipidemia were randomized to either pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy or pitavastatin monotherapy. In the present analysis, we divided HIJ-PROPER participants into the STEMI group (n=880) and NSTEMI + UA group (n=841). Cardiovascular events were analyzed between the two groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of major advanced cardiovascular events (MACE; all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, unstable angina pectoris, and ischemia-driven revascularization)

Result

During median follow-up period of 3.4 years, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint in STEMI group was 31.9% in the pitavastatin+ezetimibe therapy, compared with 39.7% in the pitavastatin-monotherapy (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62–0.97; p=0.02). However, there was no effect of pitavastatin+ezetimibe therapy on the primary endpoint in the NSTEMI + UA group. Concerning the individual components of the primary endpoint in STEMI group, the percentage of occurrence of all-cause death was significantly lower in the pitavastatin+ezetimibe therapy compared to pitavastatin mono-therapy (14 patients (3.2%) vs. 31 patients (6.9%), respectively; HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23–1.84, p=0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that use of ezetimibe and prevalence of diabetes mellitus at baseline were independent predictors of primary endpoints in STEMI group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63–0.99; p=0.04 for use of ezetimibe, HR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.22–1.94, p=0.0003 for diabetes mellitus).

Conclusion

Patients with pitavastatin+ezetimibe therapy as compared with pitavastatin-monotherapy had lower cardiovascular event in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Kaplan-Meier curves for primary endpoint

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: None

Impact of comprehensive management on clinical outcomes in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease: HIJ-CREATE sub-study

Background

There are limited data on the effects of blood pressure (BP) control and lipid lowering in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. We report a secondary analysis of the effects of BP control and lipid management in participants of the HIJ-CREATE, a prospective randomized trial.

Methods

HIJ-CREATE was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial that compared the effects of candesartan-based therapy with those of non-ARB-based standard therapy on major adverse cardiac events (MACE; a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, heart failure, stroke, and other cardiovascular events requiring hospitalization) in 2,049 hypertensive patients with angiographically documented CAD. In both groups, titration of antihypertensive agents was performed to reach the target BP of <130/85 mmHg. The primary endpoint was the time to first MACE. Incidence of endpoint events in addition to biochemistry tests and office BP was determined during the scheduled 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60-month visits. Achieved systolic BP and LDL-Cholesterol (LDL-C) level were defined as the mean values of these measurements in patients who did not develop MACEs and as the mean values of them prior to MACEs in those who developed MACEs during follow-up.

Results

During a median follow-up of 4.2 years (follow-up rate of 99.6%), the primary outcome occurred in 304 patients (30.3%). Among HIJ-CREATE participants, 905 (44.2%) were prescribed statins on enrollment. Kaplan–Meier curves for the primary outcome revealed that there was no relationship between statin therapy and MACEs in hypertensive patients with CAD. The original HIJ-CREATE population was divided into 9 groups based on equal tertiles based on mean achieved BP and LDL-C during follow-up. For the analysis of subgroups, estimates of relative risk and the associated 95% CIs were generated with a Cox proportional-hazards model (Figure 1). The relation between LDL cholesterol level and hazard ratios for MACEs was nonlinear, with a significant increase of MACEs only in the patients with inadequate controlled LDL-C level even in the patients with tightly controlled BP.

Conclusions

The results of the post-hoc analysis of the HIJ-CREATE suggest that clinicians should pay careful attention to conduct comprehensive management of lipid lowering even in the contemporary BP lowering for the secondary prevention in hypertensive patients with CAD.

Figure 1

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: None

Lower levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol are associated with increased cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving contemporary lipid-lowering therapy

Background

This study aimed to elucidate whether high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) at 3-month follow-up for patients receiving contemporary lipid-lowering therapy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) could predict cardiac events.

Methods

The HIJ-PROPER study was a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial comparing intensive lipid-lowering therapy (pitavastatin + ezetimibe) and conventional lipid-lowering therapy (pitavastatin monotherapy) after ACS. For the present analysis, the entire cohort was divided into three groups according to HDL-C levels at 3-month follow-up (Group 1, HDL-C ≤43 mg/dL; Group 2, 43–53.6 mg/dL; Group 3; HDL-C ≥53.6 mg/dL). Baseline characteristics and the incidence of the primary endpoint (a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, unstable angina pectoris, or ischemia-driven revascularization) were compared among the three groups.

Results

The primary endpoint was reported in 34.8%, 30.1%, and 24.6% of patients in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 3 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19–1.9; p=0.001). Irrespective of the treatment regimen, Group 1 had a significantly higher rate of the primary endpoint than Group 3 (pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy: HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.12–2.22; p=0.01 and pitavastatin monotherapy: HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.05–1.98; p=0.02). These trends remained even after adjustment for baseline characteristics and lipid profiles.

Conclusions

Lower levels of HDL-C at 3-month follow-up are associated with higher incidence of the cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving contemporary lipid-lowering therapy.

HDL-C levels and Cardiovascular events

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: None

P5616Risk stratification of cardiovascular events among patients with functionally non-significant coronary stenosis

Introduction

Deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of a functionally non-significant stenosis is associated with a favorable long-term clinical prognosis. However, to date, there has been limited evidence to stratify the risk for the development of cardiovascular (CV) adverse events in patients who were deferred of PCI due to a greater fractional flow reserve (FFR) than 0.80 at the target lesion.

Purpose

We aimed to stratify the risk of CV events in patients with functionally significant and non-significant coronary stenosis.

Methods

This observational study included 458 patients who were proven angiographically intermediate coronary stenoses and were measured FFR, of whom 298 deferred patients with FFR>0.80 and 160 intervened patients with FFR<0.80. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including any death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization due to heart failure, ischemic stroke and any unplanned revascularization. ROC curve for MACCE indicated the cut-off point of FFR as 0.85 and 0.76 in deferred patients and intervened patients, respectively.

Results

During the observation period, 27 MACCE (9.1%) in the Deferred group, and 33 MACCE (20.6%) in Intervened group were occurred. Kaplan-Meier curves showed a higher MACCE rate in the Intervened group than Deferred group (hazard ratio (HR): 2.19, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29–3.71, Figure A). However, even among patients in the Deferred group, the population with “intermediate” FFR (0.81–0.85) had a significantly higher MACCE rate than those with higher FFR (>0.85) (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.14–5.69, Figure B). This rate was comparable to that of the Intervened group at the remote phase (at 4-year: 32.0% vs. 35.8%). Conversely, in the Intervened group, there was no statistically significant difference in MACCE rate between patients with higher FFR (0.76–0.80) and those with lower FFR (<0.76) (Log-rank: p=0.21, Figure C).

Conclusion

The population with relatively low FFR in patients who were deferred PCI by FFR>0.80 had comparable MACCE rate to patients with FFR<0.80. Close observation after the FFR evaluation should be considered in those population.

P824The clinical impact of polyunsaturated fatty acid on clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndrome with dyslipidemia: HIJ-PROPER sub-analysis

Background

Polyunsaturated fatty acids, especially omega-3 and -6 series, are key essential nutrients that play an important role in humans to maintain cell membranes and function. A recent randomized trial reported that adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) to statins was beneficial to cardiovascular disease patients who had a residual risk factor. Further, several studies have reported that the low baseline value for EPA to arachidonic acid (AA) ratio is related to worse clinical outcome and plaque vulnerability in coronary artery disease patients. However, effects of baseline EPA/AA ratio on clinical outcomes in ACS patients have not been thoroughly evaluated.

Objectives

This study aimed to examine the impact of baseline eicosapentaenoic acid to arachidonic acid (EPA/AA) ratio on clinical outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and how lipid-lowering therapy affects serum EPA/AA levels in these patients.

Methods

This is a sub-analysis of HIJ-PROPER assessing the effect of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering treatment with pitavastatin+ezetimibe in 1,734 ACS patients with dyslipidemia. Patients were divided into two groups based on EPA/AA level on admission (cut-off: 0.34 μg/mL; median of baseline EPA/AA level) and clinical outcomes were examined.

Results

Percent reduction of LDL-C from baseline to follow-up and mean LDL-C level during follow-up were similar regardless of baseline EPA/AA ratio. In the low EPA/AA group, the Kaplan–Meier estimate for the primary endpoint at 3 years was 27.2% in the pitavastatin+ezetimibe group, compared with 36.6% in the pitavastatin-monotherapy group [hazard ratio (HR), 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52–0.93; P=0.015). However, in the high EPA/AA group, there was no significant reduction in the primary endpoint by pitavastatin+ezetimibe therapy (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.70–1.20; P=0.52).

Conclusions

Aggressive lipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe had a positive effect on clinical outcomes in the low EPA/AA group of ACS patients with dyslipidemia, but not in the high EPA/AA group. This effect was independent of LDL-C reduction and suggests that EPA/AA measurement on admission in ACS patients contributes to a “personalized” lipid-lowering approach.

P830Differences in the usefulness of aggressive lipid-lowering therapy among single-vessel and multi-vessel coronary artery disease patients: HIJ-PROPER sub-study

Background

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with multi-vessel disease (MVD) are at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. Previous study, examining stable atherosclerotic cardiac disease, reported that aggressive lipid-lowering therapy was more beneficial in MVD patients than in single-vessel disease (SVD) patients. However, no report has investigated the effects of aggressive lipid-lowering treatment according to the number of diseased coronary arteries in ACS patients.

Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to elucidate the efficacy of aggressive lipid-lowering therapy in ACS patients with MVD and SVD in modern early invasive strategy era.

Methods

The study population was derived from the HIJ-PROPER study, in which, ACS patients with dyslipidemia were randomized to pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy (targeting LDL-C less than 70mg/dl) or pitavastatin-monotherapy (targeting LDL-C less than 90mg/dl). In the present study, the treatment efficacy was compared between patients with MVD and SVD. The primary end point was a composite of major advanced cardiovascular events (MACEs), including all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and ischemia driven revascularization.

Results

We identified 1702 eligible patients (mean age, 65.6 years; male, 75.6%); 869 patients (51.1%) had MVD and 833 (48.9%) patients had SVD. The rate of acute revascularization was 96.2%. The incidence of MACEs was significantly higher in MVD group compared to SVD group (43.7% vs 25.9%, hazard ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval 1.65–2.31, p<0.001). In MVD group, there was no significant difference in MACEs between pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy and pitavastatin-monotherapy group. (43.5% vs. 43.9%, 1.0, 0.82–1.23; p=0.95). However, in SVD group, pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy showed significantly fewer MACEs than pitavastatin-monotherapy (34.6% vs. 47.4%, 0.72, 0.55–0.94, p=0.02). (Figure)

Conclusion

This study showed that ACS patients with SVD enjoyed significantly greater benefits from pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy compared with pitavastatin monotherapy, whereas the patients with MVD did not. High rate of revascularization in acute phase of ACS might affect the efficacy of aggressive lipid-lowering therapy and our results in the present study suggest different treatment approach would be necessary in ACS patients with MVD in modern early invasive strategy era.