Percutaneous renal sympathetic denervation by radiofrequency energy has been reported to reduce blood pressure (BP) by the reduction of renal sympathetic efferent and afferent signaling. We evaluated the effects of this procedure on BP and sleep apnea severity in patients with resistant hypertension and sleep apnea. We studied 10 patients with refractory hypertension and sleep apnea (7 men and 3 women; median age: 49.5 years) who underwent renal denervation and completed 3-month and 6-month follow-up evaluations, including polysomnography and selected blood chemistries, and BP measurements. Antihypertensive regimens were not changed during the 6 months of follow-up. Three and 6 months after the denervation, decreases in office systolic and diastolic BPs were observed (median: −34/−13 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic BPs at 6 months; both P <0.01). Significant decreases were also observed in plasma glucose concentration 2 hours after glucose administration (median: 7.0 versus 6.4 mmol/L; P =0.05) and in hemoglobin A1C level (median: 6.1% versus 5.6%; P <0.05) at 6 months, as well as a decrease in apnea-hypopnea index at 6 months after renal denervation (median: 16.3 versus 4.5 events per hour; P =0.059). In conclusion, catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation lowered BP in patients with refractory hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea, which was accompanied by improvement of sleep apnea severity. Interestingly, there are also accompanying improvements in glucose tolerance. Renal sympathetic denervation may conceivably be a potentially useful option for patients with comorbid refractory hypertension, glucose intolerance, and obstructive sleep apnea, although further studies are needed to confirm these proof-of-concept data.

Background: We aimed to compare statin monotherapy and upfront combination therapy of statin and ezetimibe in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). Methods and Results: The study included consecutive patients with ACS included in the PL‐ACS (Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes), which is a national, multicenter, ongoing, prospective observational registry that is mandatory for patients with ACS hospitalized in Poland. Data were matched using the Mahalanobis distance within propensity score matching calipers. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis, including all variables, was next used in propensity score matching analysis. Finally, 38 023 consecutive patients with ACS who were discharged alive were included in the analysis. After propensity score matching, 2 groups were analyzed: statin monotherapy (atorvastatin or rosuvastatin; n=768) and upfront combination therapy of statin and ezetimibe (n=768 patients). The difference in mortality between groups was significant during the follow‐up and was present at 1 (5.9% versus 3.5%; P =0.041), 2 (7.8% versus 4.3%; P =0.019), and 3 (10.2% versus 5.5%; P =0.024) years of follow‐up in favor of the upfront combination therapy, as well as for the overall period. For the treatment, rosuvastatin significantly improved prognosis compared with atorvastatin (odds ratio [OR], 0.790 [95% CI, 0.732–0.853]). Upfront combination therapy was associated with a significant reduction of all‐cause mortality in comparison with statin monotherapy (OR, 0.526 [95% CI, 0.378–0.733]), with absolute risk reduction of 4.7% after 3 years (number needed to treat=21). Conclusions: The upfront combination lipid‐lowering therapy is superior to statin monotherapy for all‐cause mortality in patients with ACS. These results suggest that in high‐risk patients, such an approach, rather than a stepwise therapy approach, should be recommended.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is made up of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle and a specific apolipoprotein(a). The blood concentration of Lp(a) is approximately 90% genetically determined, and the main genetic factor determining Lp(a) levels is the size of the apo(a) isoform, which is determined by the number of KIV2 domain repeats. The size of the apo(a) isoform is inversely proportional to the blood concentration of Lp(a). Lp(a) is a strong and independent cardiovascular risk factor. Elevated Lp(a) levels ≥ 50 mg/dl (≥ 125 nmol/l) are estimated to occur in more than 1.5 billion people worldwide. However, determination of Lp(a) levels is performed far too rarely, including Poland, where, in fact, it is only since the 2021 guidelines of the Polish Lipid Association (PoLA) and five other scientific societies that Lp(a) measurements have begun to be performed. Determination of Lp(a) concentrations is not easy due to, among other things, the different sizes of the apo(a) isoforms; however, the currently available certified tests make it possible to distinguish between people with low and high cardiovascular risk with a high degree of precision. In 2022, the first guidelines for the management of patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels were published by the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the American Heart Association (AHA). The first Polish guidelines are the result of the work of experts from the two scientific societies and their aim is to provide clear, practical recommendations for the determination and management of elevated Lp(a) levels.

Background: Whereas the efficacy and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) have been confirmed in de novo calcified coronary lesions, little is known about its utility in treating stent underexpansion. This study aimed to investigate the impact of IVL in treating stent underexpansion. Methods and Results: Consecutive patients with stent underexpansion treated with IVL entered the multicenter IVL-Dragon Registry. The procedural success (primary efficacy endpoint) was defined as a relative stent expansion >80%. Thirty days device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) (defined as a composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization, or target vessel myocardial infarction) was the secondary endpoint. A total of 62 patients were enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved in 72.6% of patients. Both stent underexpansion 58.5% (47.5–69.7) vs. 11.4% (5.8–20.7), p < 0.001, and the stenotic area 82.6% (72.4–90.8) vs. 21.5% (11.1–37.2), p < 0.001, measured by quantitative coronary angiography improved significantly after IVL. Intravascular imaging confirmed increased stent expansion following IVL from 37.5% (16.0–66.0) to 86.0% (69.2–90.7), p < 0.001, by optical coherence tomography and from 57.0% (31.5–77.2) to 89.0% (85.0–92.0), p = 0.002, by intravascular ultrasound. Secondary endpoint occurred in one (1.6%) patient caused by cardiac death. There was no target lesion revascularization or target vessel myocardial infarction during the 30-day follow-up. Conclusions: In this real-life, largest-to-date analysis of IVL use to manage underexpanded stent, IVL proved to be an effective and safe method for facilitating stent expansion and increasing luminal gain.

The aim of this article was to compare rates of all-cause death at 10 years following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with or without diabetes. The SYNTAXES study evaluated up to 10-year survival of 1800 patients with three-vessel disease (3VD) and/or left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) randomized to receive either PCI or CABG in the SYNTAX trial. Ten-year all-cause death according to diabetic status and revascularization strategy was examined. In diabetics (n = 452), the risk of mortality was numerically higher with PCI compared with CABG at 5 years [19.6% vs. 13.3%, hazard ratio (HR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96, 2.43, P = 0.075], with the opposite seen between 5 and 10 years (PCI vs. CABG: 20.8% vs. 24.4%, HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.52, 1.27, P = 0.366). Irrespective of diabetic status, there was no significant difference in all-cause death at 10 years between patients receiving PCI or CABG, the absolute treatment difference was 1.9% in diabetics (PCI vs. CABG: 36.4% vs. 34.5%, difference: 1.9%, 95% CI: −7.6%, 11.1%, P = 0.551). Among insulin-treated patients (n = 182), all-cause death at 10 years was numerically higher with PCI (47.9% vs. 39.6%, difference: 8.2%, 95% CI: −6.5%, 22.5%, P = 0.227). The treatment effects of PCI vs. CABG on all-cause death at 10 years in patients with 3VD and/or LMCAD were similar irrespective of the presence of diabetes. There may, however, be a survival benefit with CABG in patients with insulin-treated diabetes. The association between revascularization strategy and very long-term ischaemic and safety outcomes for patients with diabetes needs further investigation in dedicated trials. SYNTAX: ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT00114972 and SYNTAX Extended Survival: ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT03417050. The treatment effects of PCI versus CABG on all-cause death at 10 years in 3VD/LMCAD patients with pharmacologically treated diabetes and insulin-treated diabetes.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a widely used tool for the identification of ischaemia-generating stenoses and to guide decisions on coronary revascularisation. However, the safety of FFR-based decisions in high-risk subsets, such as patients with Diabetes Mellitus (DM) or vulnerable stenoses presenting thin-cap fibro-atheroma (TCFA), is unknown. This study will examine the impact of optical coherence tomography (OCT) plaque morphological assessment and the identification of TCFA, in combination with FFR to better predict clinical outcomes in DM patients. COMBINE (OCT–FFR) is a prospective, multi-centre study investigating the natural history of DM patients with ≥1 angiographically intermediate target lesion in three subgroups of patients; patients with FFR negative lesions without TCFA (group A) and patients with FFR negative lesions with TCFA (group B) as detected by OCT and to compare these two groups with each other, as well as to a third group with FFR-positive, PCI-treated intermediate lesions (group C). The study hypothesis is that DM patients with TCFA (group B) have a worse outcome than those without TCFA (group A) and also when compared to those patients with lesions FFR ≤0.80 who underwent complete revascularisation. The primary endpoint is the incidence of target lesion major adverse cardiac events (MACE); a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction or rehospitalisation for unstable/progressive angina in group B vs. group A. COMBINE (OCT–FFR) is the first prospective study to examine whether the addition of OCT plaque morphological evaluation to FFR haemodynamic assessment of intermediate lesions in DM patients will better predict MACE and possibly lead to new revascularisation strategies. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Register: NTR5376