Background The benefit of statin use after acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI） has been well established, however, the influence of the timing of statin administration has not been elucidated. T...Background The benefit of statin use after acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI） has been well established, however, the influence of the timing of statin administration has not been elucidated. The objective of this study focused on early clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI）. Methods This analysis of the Korea Working Group on Myocardial Infarction registry （KorMI） study included 3,584 STEMI patients （mean age, 63 ±13 years;male, 2,684, 74.9%） undergoing PCI from January 2008 to June 2009. Rates of major adverse cardiac events （MACE：all-cause death, recurrent MI, and target lesion revascularization） were compared among patients grouped according to statin therapy timing：I, both during and after hospitalization （n=2,653, 74%）;II, only during hospita-lization （n=309, 8.6%）;III, only after discharge （n=157, 4.4%）;and IV, no statin therapy （n=465, 13%）. Mean follow-up duration was 234 ± 113 days. Results Multivariate factors of statin use during hospitalization included prior statin use, multiple diseased vessels, final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade III, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. At 6-month follow-up, groups Ⅲ and Ⅳ had the highest MACE rates （2.3%, 3.9%, 5.1%, and 4.9%for groups I-IV, respectively, P=0.004）. After adjusting for confounders, groups Ⅱ-Ⅳ had a higher MACE risk than group Ⅰ [hazard ratio （HR）：3.20, 95%confidence interval （95%CI）：1.31-7.86, P=0.011;HR：3.84, 95%CI：1.47-10.02, P=0.006;and HR：3.17, 95%CI：1.59-6.40, P=0.001;respectively]. Conclusions This study, based on the national registry database, shows early and continuous statin therapy improvs early outcomes of STEMI patients after PCI in real-world clinical prac-tice.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 The benefit of statin use after acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI） has been well established, however, the influence of the timing of statin administration has not been elucidated. The objective of this study focused on early clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI）. Methods This analysis of the Korea Working Group on Myocardial Infarction registry （KorMI） study included 3,584 STEMI patients （mean age, 63 ±13 years;male, 2,684, 74.9%） undergoing PCI from January 2008 to June 2009. Rates of major adverse cardiac events （MACE：all-cause death, recurrent MI, and target lesion revascularization） were compared among patients grouped according to statin therapy timing：I, both during and after hospitalization （n=2,653, 74%）;II, only during hospita-lization （n=309, 8.6%）;III, only after discharge （n=157, 4.4%）;and IV, no statin therapy （n=465, 13%）. Mean follow-up duration was 234 ± 113 days. Results Multivariate factors of statin use during hospitalization included prior statin use, multiple diseased vessels, final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade III, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. At 6-month follow-up, groups Ⅲ and Ⅳ had the highest MACE rates （2.3%, 3.9%, 5.1%, and 4.9%for groups I-IV, respectively, P=0.004）. After adjusting for confounders, groups Ⅱ-Ⅳ had a higher MACE risk than group Ⅰ [hazard ratio （HR）：3.20, 95%confidence interval （95%CI）：1.31-7.86, P=0.011;HR：3.84, 95%CI：1.47-10.02, P=0.006;and HR：3.17, 95%CI：1.59-6.40, P=0.001;respectively]. Conclusions This study, based on the national registry database, shows early and continuous statin therapy improvs early outcomes of STEMI patients after PCI in real-world clinical prac-tice.
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.
