Quiz Ref ID Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents are currently recommended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), consisting of aspirin with a P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months using a potent antiplatelet agent such as ticagrelor or prasugrel.^1-4 However, this strategy increases bleeding risk even in patients with a high thrombotic risk of ACS.^5-7 Although aspirin has proven benefits and has become the cornerstone for the antiplatelet therapy in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, discontinuing aspirin while maintaining administration of a P2Y12 inhibitor after DAPT was introduced to reduce the risk of bleeding.⁸ Recent randomized trials also evaluated the aspirin-free strategies with ticagrelor monotherapy.^9,10 However, an investigation of ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term DAPT focusing on the patients with ACS including ST-elevation myocardial infarction who underwent PCI with newer-generation drug-eluting stents has not been performed.

BACKGROUND: The RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) demonstrated that intravascular imaging–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved clinical outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for patients with complex coronary artery lesions. This study aims to assess whether the prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging–guided procedural optimization persists in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: Of 1639 patients enrolled in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 192 patients with left main coronary artery disease were selected for the current prespecified substudy. Selected patients were randomly assigned to either the intravascular imaging–guided PCI group (n=138) or the angiography-guided PCI group (n=54). The primary end point was target vessel failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range 1.1 to 3.0 years), intravascular imaging–guided PCI was associated with lower incidence of primary end point compared with angiography-guided PCI (6.8% versus 25.1%; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13–0.76]; P =0.010). This significant reduction in primary end point was mainly driven by a lower risk of cardiac death or spontaneous target vessel–related myocardial infarction (1.6% versus 12.7%; hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03–0.82]; P =0.028). Intravascular imaging–guided PCI was independently associated with a lower risk of primary end point, even after adjusting for various clinical factors (hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12–0.72]; P =0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular imaging–guided PCI showed clinical benefit over angiography-guided PCI for left main coronary artery disease in reducing the risk of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical benefits of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with complex coronary artery lesions have been observed in previous trials, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is uncertain. METHODS: RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance vs Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was conducted in Korea between May 2018 and May 2021. This prespecified cost-effectiveness substudy was conducted using Markov model that simulated 3 states: (1) post-PCI, (2) spontaneous myocardial infarction, and (3) death. A simulated cohort was derived from the intention-to-treat population, and input parameters were extracted from either the trial data or previous publications. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using time horizon of 3 years (within trial) and lifetime. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), an indicator of incremental cost on additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, in intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. The current analysis was performed using the Korean health care sector perspective with reporting the results in US dollar (1200 Korean Won, ₩=1 dollar, $). Willingness to pay threshold was $35 000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: A total of 1639 patients were included in the trial. During 3-year follow-up, medical costs ($8661 versus $7236; incremental cost, $1426) and QALY (2.34 versus 2.31; incremental QALY, 0.025) were both higher in intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI, resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 040 per QALY gained within trial data. Conversely, lifetime simulation showed total cumulative medical cost was reversed between the 2 groups ($40 455 versus $49 519; incremental cost, −$9063) with consistently higher QALY (8.24 versus 7.89; incremental QALY, 0.910) in intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Consistently, 70% of probabilistic iterations showed cost-effectiveness of intravascular imaging-guided PCI in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The current cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that imaging-guided PCI is more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI by reducing medical cost and increasing quality-of-life in complex coronary artery lesions in long-term follow-up. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Background: There have been little data about outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) chronic total occlusion (CTO) in the drug eluting stent (DES) era. This study aimed to compare the procedural success rate and long-term clinical outcomes of ISR CTO and de novo CTO. Methods and results: Patients who underwent PCI for ISR CTO (n = 164) versus de novo CTO (n = 1208) were enrolled from three centers in Korea between January 2008 and December 2014. Among a total of ISR CTO, a proportion of DES ISR CTO was 79.3% (n = 130). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs); a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Following propensity score-matching (1:3), the ISR CTO group (n = 156) had a higher success rate (84.6% vs. 76.0%, p = 0.035), mainly driven by high success rate of PCI for DES ISR CTO (88.6%), but showed a higher incidence of MACEs [hazard ratio (HR): 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37–3.09; p < 0.001], mainly driven by higher prevalence of MI [HR: 9.71; 95% CI 2.06–45.81; p = 0.004] and TLR [HR: 3.04; 95% CI 1.59–5.81; p = 0.001], during 5 years of follow-up after successful revascularization, as compared to the de novo CTO group (n = 408). Conclusion: The procedural success rate was higher in the ISR CTO than the de novo CTO, especially in DES ISR CTO. However, irrespective of successful revascularization, the long-term clinical outcomes for the ISR CTO were significantly worse than those for the de novo CTO, in terms of MI and TLR. Graphic