Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background: Coronary artery disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often exhibit reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the impact of LV dysfunction status in conjunction with platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes has not been previously investigated. Methods: From the multicenter PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term prognosis in DES-treated patients) consortium, the patients were classified as preserved-EF (PEF: LVEF ≥ 50%) and reduced-EF (REF: LVEF< 5 0%) group by echocardiography. Platelet reactivity was measured using VerifyNow P2Y 12 assay and high platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as PRU ≥ 252. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at 5 years after PCI. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3–5. Results: A total of 13,160 patients from PTRG-DES, 9,319 (79.6%) patients with the results of both PRU and LVEF were analyzed. The incidence of MACCE and major bleeding was higher in REF group as compared with PEF group (MACCEs: hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85–2.55; major bleeding: HR 1.78, P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.39–2.78).The highest rate of MACCEs was found in patients with REF and HPR, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (HR 3.14 in REF(+)/HPR(+) vs. PEF(+)/HPR(-) group,P <0.01, 95% CI 2.51–3.91). The frequency of major bleeding was not associated with the HPR in either group. Conclusion LV dysfunction was associated with an increased incidence of MACCEs and major bleeding in patients who underwent PCI. The HPR status further exhibited significant increase of MACCEs in patients with LV dysfunction in a large, real-world registry.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028

Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.

Background: This study aimed to identify the effect of histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use on the positivity rate and clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We performed a nationwide cohort study with propensity score matching using medical claims data and general health examination results from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Individuals aged ≥ 20 years who were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 1 January and 4 June 2020 were included.Patients who were prescribed H2RA or PPI within 1 year of the test date were defined as H2RA and PPI users, respectively. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, and the secondary outcome was the instance of severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19, including death, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation administration. Results: Among 59,094 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2, 21,711 were H2RA users, 12,426 were PPI users, and 24,957 were non-users. After propensity score matching, risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly lower in H2RA users (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74–0.98) and PPI users (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52–0.74) compared to non-users. In patients with comorbidities including diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, the effect of H2RA and PPI against SARS-CoV-2 infection was not significant, whereas the protective effect was maintained in patients without such comorbidities. Risk of severe clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients showed no difference between users and non-users after propensity score matching either in H2RA users (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52–1.54) or PPI users (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.60–2.51). Conclusion H2RA and PPI use is associated with a decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but does not affect clinical outcome. Comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia seem to offset the protective effect of H2RA and PPI.

Background/Aims: The Genoss DES™ is a novel, biodegradable, polymer-coated, sirolimus-eluting stent with a cobalt- chromium stent platform and thin strut. Although the safety and effectiveness of this stent have been previously investigated, real-world clinical outcomes data are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this prospective, multicenter trial was to evaluate the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Genoss DES™ in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: The Genoss DES registry is a prospective, single-arm, observational trial for evaluation of clinical outcomes after Genoss DES™ implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from 17 sites in South Korea. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite outcome of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 12 months. Results: A total of 1,999 patients (66.4 ± 11.1 years of age; 72.8% male) were analyzed. At baseline, 62.8% and 36.7% of patients had hypertension and diabetes, respectively. The implanted stent number, diameter, and length per patient were 1.5 ± 0.8, 3.1 ± 0.5 mm, and 37.0 ± 25.0 mm, respectively. The primary endpoint occurred in 1.8% patients, with a cardiac death rate of 1.1%, target vessel-related MI rate of 0.2%, and clinically driven TLR rate of 0.8%. Conclusions In this real-world registry, the Genoss DES™ demonstrated excellent safety and effectiveness at 12 months among all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. These findings suggest that the Genoss DES™ may be a viable treatment option for patients with coronary artery disease.

Given the progressive improvements in antithrombotic strategies, management of cardiovascular disease has become sophisticated/refined. However, the optimal perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome or who are scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. Assessments of the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks are essential to reduce the rates of mortality and major cardiac events. However, the existing guidelines do not mention these topics. This case-based consensus document deals with common clinical scenarios and offers evidence-based guidelines for individualized perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in the real world.

The prevalence of ischemic heart disease is steadily growing as populations age. Antithrombotic treatment is a key therapeutic modality for the prevention of secondary cerebro-cardiovascular disease. Patients with acute coronary syndrome or who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention must be treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for a mandatory period. The optimal perioperative antithrombotic regimen remains debatable; antithrombotics can cause bleeding. Inadequate antithrombotic regimens are associated with perioperative ischemic events, but continuation of therapy may increase the risks of perioperative hemorrhagic complications (including mortality). Many guidelines on the perioperative management of antithrombotic agents have been established by academic societies. However, the existing guidelines do not cover all specialties, nor do they describe the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks associated with various surgical interventions. Moreover, few practical recommendations on the modification of antithrombotic regimens in patients who require non-deferrable interventions/surgeries or procedures associated with a high risk of hemorrhage have appeared. Therefore, cardiologists, specialists performing invasive procedures, surgeons, dentists, and anesthesiologists have not come to a consensus on optimal perioperative antithrombotic regimens. The Korean Platelet-Thrombosis Research Group presented a positioning paper on perioperative antithrombotic management. We here discuss commonly encountered clinical scenarios and engage in evidence-based discussion to assist individualized, perioperative antithrombotic management in clinical practice.