Coronary artery disease最新文献

Background: Coronary artery dominance is determined by the coronary artery emitting the posterior descending artery. In the left dominant system, a greater proportion of coronary flow enters the left coronary artery, potentially influencing calcified plaque development in the left anterior descending artery (LAD).

Methods: This retrospective single-center cohort study analyzed patients who underwent computed tomography angiography from September 2006 to December 2022 at Harbor-UCLA in Los Angeles, California. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) was quantified for the three coronary vessels. The LAD calcium score was divided by the total calcium score to calculate the LAD calcium percentage, which was compared between left and right dominant coronary systems. Multivariable linear regression assessed the association between LAD calcium percentage and coronary dominance, adjusting for age, gender, BMI, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, family history of cardiovascular disease, and past smoking.

Results: Among 9560 subjects, 6766 with CAC greater than zero were enrolled. The average age was 64.8 ± 10.7 years: 68% were male, and 9% had left dominant coronary systems. The median CAC was 51 [0-352] in the right dominant and 49 [0-358] in the left dominant system (P = 0.73). Adjusted analysis revealed that individuals with left dominant coronary systems had a 10.1% higher (CI 7.5-12.8%, P < 0.001) LAD calcium percentage than those with right dominant systems.

Conclusion: Although coronary dominance does not influence overall plaque burden of atherosclerosis, it affects calcified plaque distribution. The left dominant system is associated with a higher proportion of calcified plaque in the LAD, potentially heightening the risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

Background: It is uncertain whether ticagrelor is more effective and safer than clopidogrel in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients in the East Asian population in the real world. This study compared the clinical outcomes of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 1124 patients diagnosed with STEMI in Nanjing First Hospital from July 2011 to April 2019. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline covariates between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause death, and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding.

Results: We enrolled 1124 STEMI patients in the analysis. After propensity score matching, 420 patients were included in each group. There was a lower incidence of all-cause death in the ticagrelor group when compared with the clopidogrel group during the follow-up (8.3 vs. 17.1%; hazard ratio: 0.481; P < 0.001). Ticagrelor was also associated with reduced myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and stent thrombosis. However, no difference was detected in major bleeding. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age, Killip classification, creatinine, low-density lipoprotein, left ventricular ejection fraction, single vessel disease, inhospital intra-aortic balloon pump implantation, β-blockers, and ticagrelor were independent predictive parameters of all-cause death.

Conclusion: Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor reduced all-cause death but did not increase the incidence of major bleeding in primary PCI patients. Therefore, ticagrelor may be considered a viable substitute for clopidogrel.

Background: No-reflow following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is challenging to treat.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of upstream high-bolus-dose tirofiban administration in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) cases undergoing PPCI on top of dual antiplatelet therapy, including ticagrelor, in comparison to selective bailout administration.

Methods: This hospital-based, randomized, single-blinded prospective interventional study was conducted on 150 patients at Assiut University Heart Hospital. Patients with STEMI within 12 h after symptom onset who underwent PPCI were randomized to an upstream group (n = 75) and a selective bailout group (n = 75) based on the timing of the tirofiban bolus administration (25 µg/kg intravenously over 5 min).

Results: The bailout group's thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame count was higher than the upstream group's, despite comparable TIMI flow and myocardial blush grade between the two groups, but only approached statistical significance [14.4 (4-36) vs 12.2 (5-55), P = 0.08]. The enzymatic infarct size tended to be lower in the upstream group. All echocardiographic findings were comparable between the two studied groups, with no significant difference (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding clinical outcomes.

Conclusion: Compared to selective bailout administration, upstream high bolus dose of tirofiban in STEMI patients undergoing primary coronary intervention did not significantly affect angiographic outcomes, left ventricular remodeling, or function, despite smaller infarction size.

Long-term data are limited comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation drug-eluting stents (S-DES) vs coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing these interventions in patients with left main or multivessel CAD. We systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies that compared PCI with S-DES and CABG in patients with left main or multivessel CAD with a minimum mean follow-up period of 3 years. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We extracted data from observational studies as multivariable-adjusted or propensity score-matched hazard ratio to minimize confounding and pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random effects model in Review Manager 5.4.1. We included 10 studies, 3 of which were randomized controlled trials, comprising a total of 26964 patients, of whom 14928 underwent PCI. As compared with CABG, S-DES had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI 1.22-1.49; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), MACE (hazard ratio 1.27; 95% CI 1.08-1.50; P = 0.005; I2 = 67%), and MI (hazard ratio 2.43; 95% CI 1.80-3.28; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference between groups in incidence of stroke. In this meta-analysis of patients with complex CAD, PCI with S-DES was associated with an increased risk of mortality, MI, and MACE compared with CABG.

Background: This multicenter study aimed to retrospectively assess the relationship between bifurcation angle (BA) and major cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients undergoing nano-crush technique (NCT) for complex bifurcation lesions (CBLs).

Methods: A total of 122 consecutive patients [male: 85 (69.6%), mean age: 61.53 ± 9.03 years] who underwent NCT between January 2019 and January 2024 were included. The primary endpoint was a combined endpoint (MACE) including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Patients were classified into two groups: MACE-positive and MACE-negative patients.

Results: Among the study population, 22 patients (18%) had at least one MACE. The BA (46.89 ± 14.65° vs. 65.23 ± 10.40°, P = 0.001) was notably lower in the MACE-positive group than the MACE-negative group. In multivariable regression analysis, decreased BA was identified as one of the independent predictors of MACE (odds ratio = 0.908; 95% confidence interval: 0.852-0.969; P < 0.001). We divided the study cohort into two subgroups based on historical narrow and wide BAs (<70 vs. ≥70°). The incidence of MACE (25.3 vs. 6.4%, P = 0.008), clinically driven TLR (22.7 vs. 4.3%, P = 0.009), and TVMI (18.7 vs. 0%, P = 0.001) were notably higher in the BA <70° group than in the BA ≥70° group. Kaplan-Meier analysis also revealed that MACE-free survival was significantly lower in the BA <70° group than in the BA ≥70° group under mid-term follow-up (log-rank P = 0.009).

Conclusion: This observational multicenter study showed that the BA significantly affects mid-term outcomes in patients who underwent NCT. In addition, our findings suggest that NCT may not be a viable option in patients with narrow-angle (<70°) CBLs.

Background: The relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is well-established. Recently, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) has been validated as a superior predictor of ASCVD, especially in individuals with mild to moderate hypertriglyceridemia. The EPHESUS study evaluated real-life hypercholesterolemia management and awareness of non-HDL-C in cardiology outpatient practices.

Methods: Data from 1868 patients with ASCVD or high-risk primary prevention were analyzed to assess cholesterol goal attainment, statin adherence, and physician perceptions. This analysis focused on awareness of non-HDL-C as an ASCVD predictor, adherence to lipid-lowering therapy, and clinicians' perceptions. Associations between patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and statin adherence were examined.

Results: Among patients, 20.2% achieved non-HDL-C and 16.5% achieved LDL-C goals. In primary prevention, 18.1% reached non-HDL-C and 10.6% reached LDL-C goals, while in secondary prevention, 20.8% and 18.0% met these goals. High-intensity statin therapy was observed in 21.2% of patients, with 30.3% and 24.3% achieving non-HDL-C and LDL-C targets, respectively. Statin use was lower in women than men (54.0% vs 66.9%, P < 0.001). Women less frequently achieved non-HDL-C and LDL-C goals in both prevention groups.

Conclusions: Non-HDL-C goal attainment remains suboptimal in both primary and secondary prevention of hypercholesterolemia, particularly in women who had lower statin use and goal achievement. These findings highlight the need for improved awareness, education, and treatment strategies to reduce residual cardiovascular risk and improve outcomes.