Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Left ventricular (LV) apical thrombus is a clinically important complication which can cause systemic embolization in patients with anterior acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Systolic dysfunction has been a risk factor for developing LV apical thrombus in AMI patients. However, the role of diastolic dysfunction in the development of LV apical thrombus in these patients is still unknown. We performed this study to evaluate whether diastolic dysfunction can influence the development of LV apical thrombus in anterior AMI patients. We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive anterior AMI patients with available echocardiographic images within 1 month from January 2005 to April 2016. After gathering clinical characteristics from their medical records, systolic and diastolic functions were analyzed from digitally stored echocardiographic images. We included a total of 1045 patients (748 males, mean age 64 ± 12 years) with anterior AMI, and 494 (47%) were diagnosed as STEMI. The incidence of LV apical thrombus was 3.3% (34/1045). The LV apical thrombus group had larger LV diastolic dimension, larger LV diastolic and systolic volumes, and lower LVEF than the no LV thrombus group. The LV apical thrombus group showed higher mitral E velocity over mitral annular E' velocity ratio, an indicator of LV end-diastolic pressure (P < 0.001). In the LV apical thrombus group, the incidence of grade 2 diastolic dysfunction (32 vs 12%, P = 0.001) and grade 3 diastolic dysfunction (26 vs 2%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher than in the no LV apical thrombus group. The presence of more than grade 2 diastolic dysfunction, LVEF and presence of LV apical aneurysm were statistically significant factors associated with LV apical thrombus after the multivariate analysis. In conclusion, along with LV systolic dysfunction and LV apical aneurysm, LV diastolic dysfunction was also related with the presence of LV apical thrombus in patients with anterior AMI.

High baPWV was a strong prognostic value of vascular death in patients with acute stroke.

Background and ObjectivesAortic valve replacement (AVR) is the treatment of choice in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) patients. However, a substantial number of elderly patients refuse AVR and treated medically. We investigated their long-term prognosis.MethodsFrom January 2005 to December 2016, we analyzed elderly patients with severe symptomatic AS who refused to have AVR.ResultsAfter screening of total 534 patients, we analyzed total 180 severe symptomatic AS patients (78±7 years old, 96 males). Hypertension was the most common cardiovascular risk factor (72%) and the most common symptom was dyspnea (66%). Calculated aortic stenosis area was 0.73±0.20 cm2 and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 57.8±12.2%. Total 102 patients died during follow-up period (39.1±31.0 months). One-, 3-, and 5-year all-cause mortality rate was 21.1±3.0%, 43.1±3.8%, and 56.5±4.2%, respectively. Of them, 87 died from cardiac causes, and 1-, 3-, and 5-year cardiac mortality rate was 18.0±2.9%, 38.2±3.8%, and 50.7±4.3%, respectively. Their all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality were significantly higher than those of controls. Univariate analysis showed that age, anemia, LVEF, and Log N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were significant parameters in all-cause mortality (p<0.001, p=0.001, p=0.039, and p=0.047, respectively) and in cardiac mortality (p<0.001, p<0.001, p=0.046, and p=0.026, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that age and anemia were significant prognostic factors for cardiac and all-cause mortality.ConclusionsIn elderly severe symptomatic AS patients who treated medically, their 1-, 3- and 5-year all-cause mortality rate was 21.1±3.0%, 43.1±3.8%, and 56.5±4.2%, respectively. Age and anemia were significant prognostic factors for cardiac and all-cause mortality.

No abstract

Background and Objectives: Although complete revascularization is known superior to incomplete revascularization in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCD), there are no definite instructions on the optimal timing of non-culprit lesions percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared 1-year clinical outcomes between 2 different complete multi-vessel revascularization strategies. Methods: From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health, 606 patients with STEMI and MVCD who underwent complete revascularization were enrolled from November 2011 to December 2015. The patients were assigned to multi-vessel singlestaged PCI (SS PCI) group (n=254) or multi-vessel multi-staged PCI (MS PCI) group (n=352). Propensity score matched 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.

No abstract

Background and ObjectivesThe comparison of long-term clinical effects between Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and Paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. Seeking to clarify this issue, we performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate four-year clinical outcomes of SES compared to PES treated AMI patients.Subjects and MethodsFrom January 2004 to August 2006, all patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and acute non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by implantation of either SES or PES were enrolled. The occurrences of cardiac and non-cardiac deaths, recurrent infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and stent thrombosis were analyzed. The composite end points of these major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were also analyzed.ResultsDuring the study period, a total of 668 AMI patients had visited, of which 522 patients (299 with SES and 223 with PES) were enrolled. During the four-year clinical follow-up, both groups showed similar occurrences of non-cardiac death (14.6±2.2% vs. 18.3±3.0%, p=0.26); cardiac death (6.8±1.52% vs. 11.2±2.6%, p=0.39); re-infarction (3.3±1.1% vs. 6.4±1.8%, p=0.31); and stent thrombosis (3.2±1.1% vs. 5.4±1.7%, p=0.53). However, occurrences of TVR {4.0±1.2% vs. 10.0±3.0%, hazard ratio (HR)=0.498, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.257-0.967, p=0.039} and MACE (19.4±2.5% vs. 29.4±3.5%, HR=0.645, 95% CI=0.443-0.940, p=0.021) were significantly lower in the SES population.ConclusionIn AMI patients treated with either SES or PES implantation, the former had a significantly lower risk of TVR and MACE during four-year clinical follow-up. Rates of death, cardiac death or recurrent infarction, and stent thrombosis were similar.