Background and Objectives: The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men. Methods: COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

Background and Objectives: The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men. Methods: COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

Background and Objectives: The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men. Methods: COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

Background and Objectives: The risk profiles, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcomes for women undergoing bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined compared to those in men. Methods: COronary BIfurcation Stenting III (COBIS III) is a multicenter, real-world registry of 2,648 patients with bifurcation lesions treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents.We compared the angiographic and procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes based on sex. The primary outcome was 5-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Women (n=635, 24%) were older, had hypertension and diabetes more often, and had smaller main vessel and side branch reference diameters than men. The pre- and post-PCI angiographic percentage diameter stenoses of the main vessel and side branch were comparable between women and men. There were no differences in procedural characteristics between the sexes. Women and men had a similar risk of TLF (6.3% vs. 7.1%, p=0.63) as well as its individual components and sex was not an independent predictor of TLF. This finding was consistent in the left main and 2 stenting subgroups. Conclusions In patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, sex was not an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

Background and Objectives: The clinical benefits of complete revascularization (CR) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients are unclear. Moreover, the benefit of CR is unknown in AMI with diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. We sought to compare the prognosis of CR and incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with AMI and multivessel disease, according to the presence of DM. Methods: A total of 2,150 AMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were analyzed. CR was defined based on the angiographic image. The primary endpoint of this study was the patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) defined as a composite of allcause death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization within 3 years. Results: Overall, 3-year POCO was significantly lower in patients receiving angiographic CR (985 patients, 45.8%) compared with IR (1,165 patients, 54.2%). When divided into subgroups according to the presence of DM, CR reduced 3-year clinical outcomes in the nonDM group but not in the DM group (POCO: 11.7% vs. 23.2%, p<0.001, any revascularization:7.2% vs. 10.8%, p=0.024 in the non-DM group, POCO: 24.3% vs. 27.8%, p=0.295, any revascularization: 13.3% vs. 11.3%, p=0.448 in the DM group, for CR vs. IR). Multivariate analysis showed that CR significantly reduced 3-year POCO (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36–0.75) only in the non-DM group. Conclusions In AMI patients with multivessel disease, CR may have less clinical benefit in DM patients than in non-DM patients.

Background and Objectives: The clinical benefits of complete revascularization (CR) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients are unclear. Moreover, the benefit of CR is unknown in AMI with diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. We sought to compare the prognosis of CR and incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with AMI and multivessel disease, according to the presence of DM. Methods: A total of 2,150 AMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were analyzed. CR was defined based on the angiographic image. The primary endpoint of this study was the patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) defined as a composite of allcause death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization within 3 years. Results: Overall, 3-year POCO was significantly lower in patients receiving angiographic CR (985 patients, 45.8%) compared with IR (1,165 patients, 54.2%). When divided into subgroups according to the presence of DM, CR reduced 3-year clinical outcomes in the nonDM group but not in the DM group (POCO: 11.7% vs. 23.2%, p<0.001, any revascularization:7.2% vs. 10.8%, p=0.024 in the non-DM group, POCO: 24.3% vs. 27.8%, p=0.295, any revascularization: 13.3% vs. 11.3%, p=0.448 in the DM group, for CR vs. IR). Multivariate analysis showed that CR significantly reduced 3-year POCO (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36–0.75) only in the non-DM group. Conclusions In AMI patients with multivessel disease, CR may have less clinical benefit in DM patients than in non-DM patients.

Background and Objectives: The clinical benefits of complete revascularization (CR) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients are unclear. Moreover, the benefit of CR is unknown in AMI with diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. We sought to compare the prognosis of CR and incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with AMI and multivessel disease, according to the presence of DM. Methods: A total of 2,150 AMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were analyzed. CR was defined based on the angiographic image. The primary endpoint of this study was the patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) defined as a composite of allcause death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization within 3 years. Results: Overall, 3-year POCO was significantly lower in patients receiving angiographic CR (985 patients, 45.8%) compared with IR (1,165 patients, 54.2%). When divided into subgroups according to the presence of DM, CR reduced 3-year clinical outcomes in the nonDM group but not in the DM group (POCO: 11.7% vs. 23.2%, p<0.001, any revascularization:7.2% vs. 10.8%, p=0.024 in the non-DM group, POCO: 24.3% vs. 27.8%, p=0.295, any revascularization: 13.3% vs. 11.3%, p=0.448 in the DM group, for CR vs. IR). Multivariate analysis showed that CR significantly reduced 3-year POCO (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36–0.75) only in the non-DM group. Conclusions In AMI patients with multivessel disease, CR may have less clinical benefit in DM patients than in non-DM patients.

Background and Objectives: The clinical benefits of complete revascularization (CR) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients are unclear. Moreover, the benefit of CR is unknown in AMI with diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. We sought to compare the prognosis of CR and incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with AMI and multivessel disease, according to the presence of DM. Methods: A total of 2,150 AMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were analyzed. CR was defined based on the angiographic image. The primary endpoint of this study was the patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) defined as a composite of allcause death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization within 3 years. Results: Overall, 3-year POCO was significantly lower in patients receiving angiographic CR (985 patients, 45.8%) compared with IR (1,165 patients, 54.2%). When divided into subgroups according to the presence of DM, CR reduced 3-year clinical outcomes in the nonDM group but not in the DM group (POCO: 11.7% vs. 23.2%, p<0.001, any revascularization:7.2% vs. 10.8%, p=0.024 in the non-DM group, POCO: 24.3% vs. 27.8%, p=0.295, any revascularization: 13.3% vs. 11.3%, p=0.448 in the DM group, for CR vs. IR). Multivariate analysis showed that CR significantly reduced 3-year POCO (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36–0.75) only in the non-DM group. Conclusions In AMI patients with multivessel disease, CR may have less clinical benefit in DM patients than in non-DM patients.

Background and Objectives: The outcome benefits of β-blockers in chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) have not been fully assessed. We evaluated the prognostic impact of β-blockers on patients with chronic CAD after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: A total of 3,075 patients with chronic CAD were included from the Grand DrugEluting Stent registry. We analyzed β-blocker prescriptions, including doses and types, in each patient at 3-month intervals from discharge. After propensity score matching, 1,170 pairs of patients (β-blockers vs. no β-blockers) were derived. Primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI). We further analyzed the outcome benefits of different doses (low-, medium-, and high-dose) and types (conventional or vasodilating) of β-blockers. Results: During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3.1 (3.0–3.1) years, 134 (5.7%) patients experienced primary outcome. Overall, β-blockers demonstrated no significant benefit in primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–1.24), all-cause death (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60–1.25), and MI (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.49–3.15). In subgroup analysis, β-blockers were associated with a lower risk of all-cause death in patients with previous MI and/ or revascularization (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14–0.99) (p for interaction=0.045). No significant associations were found for the clinical outcomes with different doses and types of β-blockers. Conclusions Overall, β-blocker therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with chronic CAD undergoing PCI. Limited mortality benefit of β-blockers may exist for patients with previous MI and/or revascularization.