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.

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.

Background and aims: Risk-factor identification and risk stratification are prerequisites to the effective primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients at the highest risk benefit the most from the intensive risk-factor reduction. However, the high-risk patients' group is heterogeneous, and it is increasingly recognised that there is an 'extreme-risk' category of patients who may require particularly close attention and intensive therapeutic approach. The aim of this study was to identify subgroups of patients at the highest risk of death following myocardial infarction (MI) that might be considered as those at extremely high CVD risk. Methods: We used data from 19,582 participants of the Hyperlipidaemia Therapy in tERtiary Cardiological cEnTer (TERCET) Registry (NCT03065543) of patients with ischaemic heart disease in Poland from 2006 to present. Characteristics of 13,052 patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) were compared with those of 4295 patients with myocardial infarction (STEMI and NSTEMI). Multivariable logistic regression with stepwise backward elimination was used to identify risk factors associated with mortality in the 12-36 months following the index hospitalisation. Results: The mortality rates were significantly higher in patients after MI than in patients with CCS. In the multivariable analysis, the risk factors most strongly associated with 12-month mortality in patients after MI were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) lower than 35% (hazard ratio [HR] 3.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.14-4.67), age >75 years (HR 1.91, 95%CI 1.55-2.35), multivessel coronary artery disease (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.30-1.99), atrial fibrillation (HR 1.53, 95%CI 1.21-1.94) diabetes mellitus (HR 1.35, 95%CI 1.11-1.64) and increased LDL-C (HR per 1 mmol/l 1.09, 95%CI 1.01-1.19) or creatinine levels (HR per 10 mu mol/L 1.04, 95% CI 1.04-1.05). The risk factors that influenced mortality after 24-36 months were consistent with those after 12 months, with additional low haemoglobin (20-25% risk increase per 1 mmol reduction) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (65% risk increase after 36 months). Conclusions: In our large, single-center real-world analysis, we identified the patients with the highest risk of death who could probably benefit the most from the most intensive therapy, and hence should be considered to be an 'extreme risk' population.