No abstract

BackgroundAlthough current guidelines recommend β‐blocker after acute myocardial infarction (MI), the role of β‐blocker has not been well investigated in the modern reperfusion era. In particular, the benefit of vasodilating β‐blocker over conventional β‐blocker is still unexplored.Methods and ResultsUsing nation‐wide multicenter Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry data, we analyzed clinical outcomes of 7127 patients with acute MI who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention with stents and took β‐blockers: vasodilating β‐blocker (n=3482), and conventional β‐blocker (n=3645). In the whole population, incidence of cardiac death at 1 year was significantly lower in the vasodilating β‐blocker group (vasodilating β‐blockers versus conventional β‐blockers, 1.0% versus 1.9%; P=0.003). In 2882 pairs of propensity score–matched population, the incidence of cardiac death was significantly lower in the vasodilating β‐blocker group (1.1% versus 1.8%; P=0.028). Although incidences of MI (1.1% versus 1.5%; P=0.277), any revascularization (2.8% versus 3.0%; P=0.791), and hospitalization for heart failure (1.4% versus 1.9%; P=0.210) were not different between the 2 groups, incidences of cardiac death or MI (2.0% versus 3.1%; P=0.010), cardiac death, MI, or hospitalization for heart failure (3.0% versus 4.5%; P=0.003), cardiac death, MI, or any revascularization (3.9% versus 5.3%; P=0.026), and cardiac death, MI, any revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure (4.8% versus 6.5%; P=0.011) were significantly lower in the vasodilating β‐blocker group.ConclusionsVasodilating β‐blocker therapy resulted in better clinical outcomes than conventional β‐blocker therapy did in patients with acute MI in the modern reperfusion era. Vasodilating β‐blockers could be recommended preferentially to conventional ones for acute MI patients.

We demonstrate a polymer-stabilized blue-phase liquid crystal device (PS-BPLC), which can be driven by a vertical electric field by transforming normal incident beams into oblique ones. By attaching prism sheets to the cell, the high operating voltage and low transmittance issues on the PS-BPLC employing conventional in-plane field switching modes can be solved simply. The normal brightness can be enhanced by using two prism sheets on top and bottom substrates, respectively.

SummaryIt is not clear if anti-restonotic effect of cilostazol is consistent for different types of drug-eluting stents (DES).The purpose of this study was to compare the anti-proliferative effect of cilostazol between DAT and TAT with consideration of confounding influences of DES type.Nine hundred and fifteen patients were randomized to either dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT; aspirin and clopidogrel) or triple antiplatelet therapy (TAT; aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol) in the previous CILON-T trial. After excluding 70 patients who received both or neither stents, we analyzed 845 patients who received exclusively PES or ZES, and compared in-stent late loss at 6 months between both antiplatelet regimens (DAT versus TAT).Baseline angiographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the DAT (656 lesions in 425 patients) and the TAT group (600 lesions in 420 patients). The 6-month follow-up angiography was completed in 745 patients (88.2%). Quantitative coronary angiography showed that TAT significantly reduced in-stent late loss (DAT 0.62 ± 0.62 mm versus TAT 0.54 ± 0.49 mm, P = 0.015). Stent type, diabetes or lesion length did not interact with difference of late loss. However, reduction of late loss by cilostazol did not lead to a significant reduction in the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (DAT 7.8% versus TAT 6.9%, P = 0.69) due to a nonlinear relationship found between late loss and TLR.The TAT group showed less in-stent late loss as compared to the DAT group. This was consistently observed regardless of DES type, lesion length, or diabetic status. However, reduction of late loss by cilostazol did not lead to a significant reduction in TLR.(Int Heart J 2017; 58: 853-860) Key words: Cilostazol, Paclitaxel-eluting stent, Zotarolimus-eluting stent, Restenosis C ilostazol is a selective phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 inhibitor that is commonly prescribed in patients with peripheral artery disease. It reduces restenosis of bare metal stents and drugeluting stents (DES) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a result of its anti-proliferative effect.1) It also intensified platelet inhibition in patients who showed high post-treatment platelet reactivity despite conventional dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). 2-4)Previous studies showed the benefit of cilostazol in specific subgroups, such as diabetic patients and those with long coronary lesions.5-7) However, it is not clear if these results can be extrapolated to the general population. The CILON-T trial was a prospective, randomized trial that compared the efficacy of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) (i.e., aspirin, clopidogrel) and triple antiplatelet therapy (TAT) (i.e., aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol) in patients who underwent drug-eluting stent (DES) implanFrom the

This paper presents the effects of a dielectric layer and an electrolyte on the driving performance of an electrowetting on dielectric (EWOD)-based liquid lens. The range of tunable focal length of the EWOD-based liquid lens was highly dependent on the conditions of the dielectric layer, which included an inorganic oxide layer and an organic hydrophobic layer. Moreover, experiments on the physical and optical durability of electrolyte by varying temperature conditions, were conducted and their results were discussed. Finally, the lens with a truncated-pyramid silicon cavity having a sidewall dielectrics and electrode was fabricated by anisotropic etching and other micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) technologies in order to demonstrate its performance. The lens with 0.6 -μm-thick SiO 2 layer and 10 wt% LiCl-electrolyte exhibited brilliant focal-length tunability from infinity to 3.19 mm.