Background and Objectives: De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-STsegment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Methods: This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year. Results: Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48– 0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48–2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271). Conclusions Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.

Background/Aims: While switching strategies of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (RIs) have sometimes been used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients, the current status of in-hospital P2Y12RI switching remains unknown. Methods: Overall, 8,476 AMI patients who underwent successful revascularization from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH) were divided according to in-hospital P2Y12RI strategies, and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding during hospitalization were compared. Results: Patients with in-hospital P2Y12RI switching accounted for 16.5%, of which 867 patients were switched from clopidogrel to potent P2Y12RI (C-P) and 532 patients from potent P2Y12RI to clopidogrel (P-C). There were no differences in NACEs among the unchanged clopidogrel, the unchanged potent P2Y12RIs, and the P2Y12RI switching groups. However, compared to the unchanged clopidogrel group, the C-P group had a higher incidence of non-fatal MI, and the P-C group had a higher incidence of TIMI major bleeding. In clinical events of in-hospital P2Y12RI switching, 90.9% of non-fatal MI occurred during pre-switching clopidogrel administration, 60.7% of TIMI major bleeding was related to pre-switching P2Y12RIs, and 71.4% of TIMI major bleeding was related to potent P2Y12RIs. Only 21.6% of the P2Y12RI switching group switched to P2Y12RIs after a loading dose (LD); however, there were no differences in clinical events between patients with and without LD. Conclusions In-hospital P2Y12RI switching occurred occasionally, but had relatively similar clinical outcomes compared to unchanged P2Y12RIs in Korean AMI patients. Non-fatal MI and bleeding appeared to be mainly related to pre-switching P2Y12RIs.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.

Purpose: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted the emergency medical care system worldwide. We analyzed the changes in the management of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and compared the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras. Materials and Methods: From March to October of the COVID-19 era (2020), 83 consecutive patients with ICH were admitted to four comprehensive stroke centers. We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients and compared the treatment workflow metrics, treatment modalities, and clinical outcomes with the patients admitted during the same period of pre-COVID-19 era (2017–2019). Results: Three hundred thirty-eight patients (83 in COVID-19 era and 255 in pre-COVID-19 era) were included in this study. Symptom onset/detection-to-door time [COVID-19; 56.0 min (34.0–106.0), pre-COVID-19; 40.0 min (27.0–98.0), p=0.016] and median door to-intensive treatment time differed between the two groups [COVID-19; 349.0 min (177.0–560.0), pre-COVID-19; 184.0 min (134.0–271.0), p<0.001]. Hematoma expansion was detected more significantly in the COVID-19 era (39.8% vs. 22.1%, p=0.002). At 3-month follow-up, clinical outcomes of patients were worse in the COVID-19 era (Good modified Rankin Scale; 33.7% in COVID-19, 46.7% in pre-COVID-19, p=0.039). Conclusion During the COVID-19 era, delays in management of ICH was associated with hematoma expansion and worse outcomes.

Purpose: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted the emergency medical care system worldwide. We analyzed the changes in the management of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and compared the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras. Materials and Methods: From March to October of the COVID-19 era (2020), 83 consecutive patients with ICH were admitted to four comprehensive stroke centers. We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients and compared the treatment workflow metrics, treatment modalities, and clinical outcomes with the patients admitted during the same period of pre-COVID-19 era (2017–2019). Results: Three hundred thirty-eight patients (83 in COVID-19 era and 255 in pre-COVID-19 era) were included in this study. Symptom onset/detection-to-door time [COVID-19; 56.0 min (34.0–106.0), pre-COVID-19; 40.0 min (27.0–98.0), p=0.016] and median door to-intensive treatment time differed between the two groups [COVID-19; 349.0 min (177.0–560.0), pre-COVID-19; 184.0 min (134.0–271.0), p<0.001]. Hematoma expansion was detected more significantly in the COVID-19 era (39.8% vs. 22.1%, p=0.002). At 3-month follow-up, clinical outcomes of patients were worse in the COVID-19 era (Good modified Rankin Scale; 33.7% in COVID-19, 46.7% in pre-COVID-19, p=0.039). Conclusion During the COVID-19 era, delays in management of ICH was associated with hematoma expansion and worse outcomes.

Background and Objectives: The EPIC™ stent is a self-expanding, nitinol stent that has been designed to enhance flexibility and provide expansion within vessels. The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of the EPIC™ stent when used to treat iliac artery diseases in a prospective Korean multicenter registry. Methods: A total of 138 patients with iliac artery diseases who received endovascular treatment with EPIC™ stents at 9 Korean sites were enrolled in a prospective cohort and followed for 1 year. The primary endpoint was the 1-year freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were 1-year clinical patency and freedom from major adverse events (MAEs). Results: The mean age of the study subjects was 66.8±8.5 years and most subjects were male (86.2%). The most frequent lesion type was Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus B (43.5%) and the majority (56.5%) of the target lesions were located in the common iliac artery. Procedural success was obtained in 99.3% of patients. The freedom from TLR and the clinical patency at 1-year follow-up were 94.9% and 92.3%, respectively. The 1-year rate of MAEs was 5.1%. Combined coronary artery disease (hazard ratio [HR], 5.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–30.89; p=0.035) and smaller stent diameter (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17–0.88;p=0.023) were identified as independent risk factors of TLR after EPIC™ stent implantation. Conclusions The EPIC™ stents demonstrated excellent immediate and 1-year efficacy and safety outcomes in iliac artery lesions in this multicenter, prospective, registry-based study.

Background and Objectives: The EPIC™ stent is a self-expanding, nitinol stent that has been designed to enhance flexibility and provide expansion within vessels. The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of the EPIC™ stent when used to treat iliac artery diseases in a prospective Korean multicenter registry. Methods: A total of 138 patients with iliac artery diseases who received endovascular treatment with EPIC™ stents at 9 Korean sites were enrolled in a prospective cohort and followed for 1 year. The primary endpoint was the 1-year freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were 1-year clinical patency and freedom from major adverse events (MAEs). Results: The mean age of the study subjects was 66.8±8.5 years and most subjects were male (86.2%). The most frequent lesion type was Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus B (43.5%) and the majority (56.5%) of the target lesions were located in the common iliac artery. Procedural success was obtained in 99.3% of patients. The freedom from TLR and the clinical patency at 1-year follow-up were 94.9% and 92.3%, respectively. The 1-year rate of MAEs was 5.1%. Combined coronary artery disease (hazard ratio [HR], 5.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–30.89; p=0.035) and smaller stent diameter (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17–0.88;p=0.023) were identified as independent risk factors of TLR after EPIC™ stent implantation. Conclusions The EPIC™ stents demonstrated excellent immediate and 1-year efficacy and safety outcomes in iliac artery lesions in this multicenter, prospective, registry-based study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of data regarding the benefit of clopidogrel monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES). This study compared outcome between clopidogrel versus aspirin as monotherapy after DES for acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: From Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database, 1,819 patients treated with DES who were switched to monotherapy with clopidogrel (n=534) or aspirin (n=1,285) after uneventful 12-month DAPT were analyzed. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, MI, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding during the period from 12 to 24 months. RESULTS: After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients who received clopidogrel, compared with those treated with aspirin, had a similar incidence of NACE (0.7% and 0.7%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–3.60; p=0.923). The 2 groups had similar rates of death from any cause (0.1% in each group, p=0.789), MI (0.3% and 0.1%, respectively; p=0.226), repeat PCI (0.1% and 0.3%, respectively; p=0.548), stent thrombosis (0.1% and 0%, respectively; p=0.121), major bleeding (0.2% in each group, p=0.974), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (0.5% in each group, p=0.924). CONCLUSIONS Monotherapy with clopidogrel, compared to aspirin, after DAPT showed similar clinical outcomes in patients with acute MI treated with DES.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of data regarding the benefit of clopidogrel monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES). This study compared outcome between clopidogrel versus aspirin as monotherapy after DES for acute myocardial infarction (MI).METHODS: From Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database, 1,819 patients treated with DES who were switched to monotherapy with clopidogrel (n=534) or aspirin (n=1,285) after uneventful 12-month DAPT were analyzed. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, MI, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding during the period from 12 to 24 months.RESULTS: After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients who received clopidogrel, compared with those treated with aspirin, had a similar incidence of NACE (0.7% and 0.7%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–3.60; p=0.923). The 2 groups had similar rates of death from any cause (0.1% in each group, p=0.789), MI (0.3% and 0.1%, respectively; p=0.226), repeat PCI (0.1% and 0.3%, respectively; p=0.548), stent thrombosis (0.1% and 0%, respectively; p=0.121), major bleeding (0.2% in each group, p=0.974), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (0.5% in each group, p=0.924).CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with clopidogrel, compared to aspirin, after DAPT showed similar clinical outcomes in patients with acute MI treated with DES.
Aspirin ; Drug-Eluting Stents ; Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Incidence ; Korea ; Myocardial Infarction ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors ; Stents ; Stroke ; Thrombosis