BACKGROUND There is insufficient evidence regarding the effect of high-intensity statin therapy in older adults.This study aimed to investigate the effects of high-intensity statin treatment on the clinical outcomes i...BACKGROUND There is insufficient evidence regarding the effect of high-intensity statin therapy in older adults.This study aimed to investigate the effects of high-intensity statin treatment on the clinical outcomes in older adults with myocardial infarc-tion(MI).METHODS Consecutive patients with MI aged at least 75 years were analyzed retrospectively.The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events(MACCE),defined as a composite of all-cause death,MI,rehospitalization due to un-stable angina,repeat revascularization,and ischemic stroke.The high-intensity group was compared to the low-to-moderate in-tensity group in the propensity score-matched cohort.RESULTS Average age of total 546 patients was 81 years.Among them,84%of patients underwent percutaneous coronary in-tervention.The unadjusted seven-year MACCE rate differed by statin intensity(high-intensity statin group:38%,moderate-intensity statin group:42%,low-intensity statin group:56%,and no-statin group:61%,P=0.004).However,among these groups,many baseline characteristics were significantly different.Among the 74 propensity score-matched pairs,which lacked any significant differences in all baseline characteristics,the high-intensity group had a significantly lower rate of MACCE than the low-to-moderate intensity group(37%vs.53%,P=0.047).Follow-up low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly lower in the high-intensity group than that in the low-to-moderate intensity group(69.4±16.0 mg/dL vs.77.9±25.9 mg/dL,P=0.026).CONCLUSIONS In older adult patients with MI,the use of high-intensity statin caused significantly less occurrence of MACCE in comparison to that in low-to-moderate intensity for up to seven years of follow-up.展开更多
Background The zotarolimus-eluting stent has shown larger in-stent late lumen loss compared to sirolimus-eluting stents in previous studies. However, this has not been thoroughly evaluated in ST elevation myocardial i...Background The zotarolimus-eluting stent has shown larger in-stent late lumen loss compared to sirolimus-eluting stents in previous studies. However, this has not been thoroughly evaluated in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial evaluating angiographic outcomes in patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction, treated with zotarolimus-eluting stents or sirolimus-eluting stents. From March 2007 to February 2009, 122 patients were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting stents or sirolimus-eluting stents in a 1：1 fashion. The primary endpoint was 9-month in-stent late lumen loss confirmed by coronary angiography, and secondary endpoints were percent diameter stenosis, binary restenosis rate, major adverse cardiac events （a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization）, and late-acquired incomplete stent apposition. Results Angiographic in-stent late lumen loss was significantly higher in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group compared to the sirolimus-eluting stent group （（0.49±0.65） mm vs. （0.10±0.46） mm, P=0.001）. Percent diameter stenosis at 9-month follow-up was also larger in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group （（30.0±17.9）% vs. （17.6±14.0）%, P 〈0.001）. In-segment analysis showed similar findings. There were no significant differences in binary restenosis rate, major adverse cardiac events, and late-acquired incomplete stent apposition. Conclusions Compared to sirolimus-eluting stents, the zotarolimus-eluting stent is associated with significantly higher in-stent late lumen loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up in the treatment of ST elevation myocardial infarction. Although there was no significant difference in 1-year clinical outcomes, the clinical implication of increased late lumen loss should be further studied.展开更多
Background Central blood pressure （BP） is pathophysiologically more important than peripheral BP for the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. Arterial stiffness is also a good predictor of cardiovascular morbidit...Background Central blood pressure （BP） is pathophysiologically more important than peripheral BP for the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. Arterial stiffness is also a good predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The effects of benidipine, a unique dual L-IT-type calcium channel blocker, on central BP have not been reported. This study aimed to compare the effect of benidipine and Iosartan on the central BP and arterial stiffness in mild to moderate essential hypertensives. Methods This 24 weeks, multi-center, open label, randomized, active drug comparative, parallel group study was designed as a non-inferiority study. The eligible patients （n=200） were randomly assigned to receive benidipine （n=101） or Iosartan （n=99）. Radial artery applanation tonometry and pulse wave analysis were used to measure the central BP, pulse wave velocity （PWV） and augmentation index （AIx）. We also measured the metabolic and inflammatory markers. Results After 24 weeks, the central BP decreased significantly from baseline by （16.8±14.0/10.5±9.2） mmHg （1 mmHg =0.133 kPa） （systolic/diastolic BP; P 〈0.001） in benidipine group and （18.9±14.7/12.1±10.2） mmHg （P 〈0.001） in Iosartan group respectively. Both benidipine and Iosartan groups significantly lowered peripheral BP （P 〈0.001） and AIx （P 〈0.05）, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. The mean aortic, brachial and femoral PWV did not change in both groups after 24-week treatment. There were no significant changes of the blood metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers in each group. Conclusion Benidipine is as effective as Iosartan in lowering the central and peripheral BP, and improving arterial stiffness.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND There is insufficient evidence regarding the effect of high-intensity statin therapy in older adults.This study aimed to investigate the effects of high-intensity statin treatment on the clinical outcomes in older adults with myocardial infarc-tion(MI).METHODS Consecutive patients with MI aged at least 75 years were analyzed retrospectively.The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events(MACCE),defined as a composite of all-cause death,MI,rehospitalization due to un-stable angina,repeat revascularization,and ischemic stroke.The high-intensity group was compared to the low-to-moderate in-tensity group in the propensity score-matched cohort.RESULTS Average age of total 546 patients was 81 years.Among them,84%of patients underwent percutaneous coronary in-tervention.The unadjusted seven-year MACCE rate differed by statin intensity(high-intensity statin group:38%,moderate-intensity statin group:42%,low-intensity statin group:56%,and no-statin group:61%,P=0.004).However,among these groups,many baseline characteristics were significantly different.Among the 74 propensity score-matched pairs,which lacked any significant differences in all baseline characteristics,the high-intensity group had a significantly lower rate of MACCE than the low-to-moderate intensity group(37%vs.53%,P=0.047).Follow-up low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly lower in the high-intensity group than that in the low-to-moderate intensity group(69.4±16.0 mg/dL vs.77.9±25.9 mg/dL,P=0.026).CONCLUSIONS In older adult patients with MI,the use of high-intensity statin caused significantly less occurrence of MACCE in comparison to that in low-to-moderate intensity for up to seven years of follow-up.
文摘Background The zotarolimus-eluting stent has shown larger in-stent late lumen loss compared to sirolimus-eluting stents in previous studies. However, this has not been thoroughly evaluated in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial evaluating angiographic outcomes in patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction, treated with zotarolimus-eluting stents or sirolimus-eluting stents. From March 2007 to February 2009, 122 patients were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting stents or sirolimus-eluting stents in a 1：1 fashion. The primary endpoint was 9-month in-stent late lumen loss confirmed by coronary angiography, and secondary endpoints were percent diameter stenosis, binary restenosis rate, major adverse cardiac events （a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization）, and late-acquired incomplete stent apposition. Results Angiographic in-stent late lumen loss was significantly higher in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group compared to the sirolimus-eluting stent group （（0.49±0.65） mm vs. （0.10±0.46） mm, P=0.001）. Percent diameter stenosis at 9-month follow-up was also larger in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group （（30.0±17.9）% vs. （17.6±14.0）%, P 〈0.001）. In-segment analysis showed similar findings. There were no significant differences in binary restenosis rate, major adverse cardiac events, and late-acquired incomplete stent apposition. Conclusions Compared to sirolimus-eluting stents, the zotarolimus-eluting stent is associated with significantly higher in-stent late lumen loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up in the treatment of ST elevation myocardial infarction. Although there was no significant difference in 1-year clinical outcomes, the clinical implication of increased late lumen loss should be further studied.
文摘Background Central blood pressure （BP） is pathophysiologically more important than peripheral BP for the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. Arterial stiffness is also a good predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The effects of benidipine, a unique dual L-IT-type calcium channel blocker, on central BP have not been reported. This study aimed to compare the effect of benidipine and Iosartan on the central BP and arterial stiffness in mild to moderate essential hypertensives. Methods This 24 weeks, multi-center, open label, randomized, active drug comparative, parallel group study was designed as a non-inferiority study. The eligible patients （n=200） were randomly assigned to receive benidipine （n=101） or Iosartan （n=99）. Radial artery applanation tonometry and pulse wave analysis were used to measure the central BP, pulse wave velocity （PWV） and augmentation index （AIx）. We also measured the metabolic and inflammatory markers. Results After 24 weeks, the central BP decreased significantly from baseline by （16.8±14.0/10.5±9.2） mmHg （1 mmHg =0.133 kPa） （systolic/diastolic BP; P 〈0.001） in benidipine group and （18.9±14.7/12.1±10.2） mmHg （P 〈0.001） in Iosartan group respectively. Both benidipine and Iosartan groups significantly lowered peripheral BP （P 〈0.001） and AIx （P 〈0.05）, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. The mean aortic, brachial and femoral PWV did not change in both groups after 24-week treatment. There were no significant changes of the blood metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers in each group. Conclusion Benidipine is as effective as Iosartan in lowering the central and peripheral BP, and improving arterial stiffness.
