The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

The outstanding development in contemporary medicine, highlighted by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was achieved through the adoption of drug-eluting stents (DESs). Although DES is the established therapy for patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary artery disease (CAD), their drawbacks include restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the requirement for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with an uncertain duration regarding its optimality. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment leaves nothing behind on the vessel wall, providing the benefit of avoiding stent thrombosis and not necessitating obligatory extended DAPT. After optimizing coronary blood flow, DCB treatment delivers an antiproliferative drug directly coated on a balloon. Although more evidence is needed for the application of DCB treatment in de novo coronary lesions, recent studies suggest the safety and effectiveness of DCB treatment for diverse conditions including small and large vessel diseases, complex lesions like bifurcation lesions or diffuse or multivessel diseases, chronic total occlusion lesions, acute myocardial infarctions, patients at high risk of bleeding, and beyond. Consequently, we will review the current therapeutic choices for managing de novo CAD using DCB and assess the evidence supporting their concurrent application.Additionally, it aims to discuss future important perspectives.

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 and Objectives: Ultimaster™, a third-generation sirolimus-eluting stent using biodegradable polymer, has been introduced to overcome long term adverse vascular events, such as restenosis or stent thrombosis. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes of Ultimaster™ stents in Korean patients with coronary artery disease. Methods: This study is a multicenter, prospective, observational registry across 12 hospitals. To reflect real-world clinical evidence, non-selective subtypes of patients and lesions were included in this study. The study end point was target lesion failure (TLF) (the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization [TLR]) at 12-month clinical follow up. Results: A total of 576 patients were enrolled between November 2016 and May 2021. Most of the patients were male (76.5%), with a mean age of 66.0±11.2 years. Among the included patients, 40.1% had diabetes mellitus (DM) and 67.9% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS).At 12 months, the incidence of TLF was 4.1%. The incidence of cardiac death was 1.5%, MI was 1.0%, TLR was 2.7%, and stent thrombosis was 0.6%. In subgroup analysis based on the presence of ACS, DM, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or bifurcation, there were no major differences in the incidence of the primary endpoint. Conclusions The present registry shows that Ultimaster™ stent is safe and effective for routine real-world clinical practice in non-selective Korean patients, having a low rate of adverse events at least up to 12 months.

Background: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the SMART-CHOICE trial, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after three months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) achieved clinical outcomes comparable to those of 12 months of DAPT.Nonetheless, the effects of sex on these outcomes remain unknown. Methods: This open-label, non-inferiority, randomized study, conducted in 33 hospitals in South Korea, included 2,993 patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. Patients were randomly assigned to receive DAPT (aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor) for three months then P2Y12 inhibitor alone for nine months, or DAPT for the entire 12 months. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) 12 months after the index procedure. The bleeding endpoints were Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding types 2 to 5. Results: Of the patients, 795 (26.6%) were women, who were older and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia than men. The sexes exhibited comparable primary endpoints (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–1.55; P = 0.770) and bleeding endpoints (adjusted HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.63–1.81; P = 0.811). P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs DAPT was associated with lower risk of BARC type 2 to 5 bleeding in women (adjusted HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16–0.98; P = 0.045) but the difference was not statistically significant when using the Bonferroni correction. The primary endpoints were similar between treatment groups in both sexes. Conclusion In both sexes undergoing PCI, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after three months of DAPT achieved similar risks of the primary endpoints and the bleeding events compared with prolonged DAPT. Therefore, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal with ongoing P2Y12 inhibitors may be comparable in women and men.

Purpose: Data are limited on the long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment in comparison to drugeluting stent (DES) for de novo coronary lesions. We investigated the long-term clinical outcomes of DCB treatment in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for de novo coronary lesions. Materials and Methods: A total of 103 patients scheduled for elective PCI for de novo non-small coronary lesions (≥2.5 mm) who were successfully treated with DCB alone were retrospectively compared with 103 propensity-matched patients treated with second-generation DES from the PTRG-DES registry (n=13160). All patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events [MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, target lesion thrombosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major bleeding] at 5 years. Results: At 5-year clinical follow-up, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the rate of MACE were significantly lower in the DCB group [2.9% vs. 10.7%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07–0.96; log-rank p=0.027]. There was a significantly lower incidence of TVR in the DCB group (1.0% vs. 7.8%; HR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.01–0.98; long-rank p=0.015), and there was major bleeding only in the DES group (0.0% vs. 1.9%; log-rank p=0.156). Conclusion At 5-year follow-up, DCB treatment was significantly associated with reduced incidences of MACE and TVR, compared with DES implantation, for de novo coronary lesions.

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.