P ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) is still challenging, and there are unmet needs even with the availability of drug-eluting stents (DESs). [1][2][3][4] Despite the development of novel techniques and technologies for CTO intervention, the increased clinical and angiographic risk factors accompanying more complex procedures have been associated with worse clinical outcomes. [3][4][5][6] The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been recommended as 1 way to improve overall PCI clinical outcomes; however, few studies have evaluated its use during CTO intervention, and no randomized study has compared IVUS-guided CTO intervention with conventional angiography-guided intervention. 7-9Background-There have been no randomized studies comparing intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided versus conventional angiography-guided chronic total occlusion (CTO) intervention using new-generation drug-eluting stent Therefore, we conducted a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial designed to test the hypothesis that IVUS-guided CTO intervention is superior to angiography-guided intervention. Methods and Results-After successful guidewire crossing, 402 patients with CTOs were randomized to the IVUS-guided group (n=201) or the angiography-guided group (n=201) and secondarily randomized to Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents or Nobori biolimus-eluting stents. The primary and secondary end points were cardiac death and a major adverse cardiac event defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization, respectively. After 12-month follow-up, the rate of cardiac death was not significantly different between the IVUSguided group (0%) and the angiography-guided group (1.0%; P by log-rank test=0.16). However, major adverse cardiac event rates were significantly lower in the IVUS-guided group than that in the angiography-guided group (2.6% versus 7.1%; P=0.035; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.97). Occurrence of the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the IVUS-guided group (0%) than in the angiography-guided group (2.0%; P=0.045). The rates of target-vessel revascularization were not significantly different between the 2 groups. In the comparison between Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent and Nobori biolimus-eluting stent, major adverse cardiac event rates were not significantly different (4.0% versus 5.7%; P=0.45). Conclusions-Although IVUS-guided CTO intervention did not significantly reduce cardiac mortality, this randomized study demonstrated that IVUS-guided CTO intervention might improve 12-month major adverse cardiac event rate after new-generation drug-eluting stent implantation when compared with conventional angiography-guided CTO intervention. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01563952. Kim et al Clinical Impact of IVUS-Guided CTO InterventionTherefore, we conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial designed t...

Management of complicated CDAD remains challenging for clinicians. TEVAR is a reasonable treatment modality for dissections limited to the thoracic aorta and for prevention of focal aortic growth in extensive dissections. Late complications and the need for secondary interventions emphasize the complexity of this patient population and the need for long-term follow-up.

No abstract

Renal denervation is a promising new non-pharmacological treatment for resistant hypertension. However, there is a lack of data from Asian patients. The REQUIRE trial investigated the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of renal denervation in treated patients with resistant hypertension from Japan and South Korea. Adults with resistant hypertension (seated office blood pressure ≥150/90 mmHg and 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg) with suitable renal artery anatomy were randomized to ultrasound renal denervation or a sham procedure. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 3 months. A total of 143 patients were included (72 renal denervation, 71 sham control). Reduction from baseline in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 3 months was not significantly different between the renal denervation (−6.6 mmHg) and sham control (−6.5 mmHg) groups (difference: −0.1, 95% confidence interval −5.5, 5.3; p = 0.971). Reductions from baseline in home and office systolic blood pressure (differences: –1.8 mmHg [p = 0.488] and −2.0 mmHg [p = 0.511], respectively), and medication load, did not differ significantly between the two groups. The procedure-/device-related major adverse events was not seen. This study did not show a significant difference in ambulatory blood pressure reductions between renal denervation and a sham procedure in treated patients with resistant hypertension. Although blood pressure reduction after renal denervation was similar to other sham-controlled studies, the sham group in this study showed much greater reduction. This unexpected blood pressure reduction in the sham control group highlights study design issues that will be addressed in a new trial. Clinical trial registration NCT02918305 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

No abstract

ImportanceIn patients with coronary artery disease, some guidelines recommend initial statin treatment with high-intensity statins to achieve at least a 50% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). An alternative approach is to begin with moderate-intensity statins and titrate to a specific LDL-C goal. These alternatives have not been compared head-to-head in a clinical trial involving patients with known coronary artery disease.ObjectiveTo assess whether a treat-to-target strategy is noninferior to a strategy of high-intensity statins for long-term clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA randomized, multicenter, noninferiority trial in patients with a coronary disease diagnosis treated at 12 centers in South Korea (enrollment: September 9, 2016, through November 27, 2019; final follow-up: October 26, 2022).InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive either the LDL-C target strategy, with an LDL-C level between 50 and 70 mg/dL as the target, or high-intensity statin treatment, which consisted of rosuvastatin, 20 mg, or atorvastatin, 40 mg.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary end point was a 3-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization with a noninferiority margin of 3.0 percentage points.ResultsAmong 4400 patients, 4341 patients (98.7%) completed the trial (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.9] years; 1228 females [27.9%]). In the treat-to-target group (n = 2200), which had 6449 person-years of follow-up, moderate-intensity and high-intensity dosing were used in 43% and 54%, respectively. The mean (SD) LDL-C level for 3 years was 69.1 (17.8) mg/dL in the treat-to-target group and 68.4 (20.1) mg/dL in the high-intensity statin group (n = 2200) (P = .21, compared with the treat-to-target group). The primary end point occurred in 177 patients (8.1%) in the treat-to-target group and 190 patients (8.7%) in the high-intensity statin group (absolute difference, –0.6 percentage points [upper boundary of the 1-sided 97.5% CI, 1.1 percentage points]; P < .001 for noninferiority).Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with coronary artery disease, a treat-to-target LDL-C strategy of 50 to 70 mg/dL as the goal was noninferior to a high-intensity statin therapy for the 3-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization. These findings provide additional evidence supporting the suitability of a treat-to-target strategy that may allow a tailored approach with consideration for individual variability in drug response to statin therapy.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02579499

No abstract

PurposeTo investigate the effect of pretreatment with intravenous nicorandil on the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients with renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography.Materials and MethodsThis randomized controlled multicenter study enrolled a total of 166 patients (nicorandil n=81; control n=85) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min. Nicorandil 12 mg dissolved in 100 mL of 0.9% saline was administered intravenously for 30 minutes just prior to coronary angiography in the nicorandil group. The same volume of only saline was given to the control group. The primary end-point was the incidence of CIN, defined as >0.5 mg/dL increase or >25% rise in serum creatinine (SCr) concentration within 48 hours of contrast exposure compared to baseline.ResultsThe final analysis included 149 patients (nicorandil n=73; control n=76). The baseline characteristics and the total volume of the used contrast (Iodixanol, 125.6±69.1 mL vs. 126.9±74.6 mL, p=0.916) were similar between the two groups. The incidence of CIN also did not differ between the nicorandil and control groups (6.8% vs. 6.6%, p=0.794). There was no difference between the two groups in the relative change in SCr from baseline to peak level within 48 hours after coronary angiography (-1.58±24.07% vs. 0.96±17.49%, p=0.464), although the nicorandil group showed less absolute change in SCr than the control group (-0.01±0.43 mg/mL vs. 0.02±0.31 mg/mL, p=0.005).ConclusionProphylactic intravenous infusion of nicorandil did not decrease the incidence of CIN in patients with renal dysfunction undergoing coronary angiography.