BACKGROUND: Bleeding rates on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) within 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain high in clinical practice, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk. Aspirin-free strategy might result in lower bleeding early after PCI without increasing cardiovascular events, but its efficacy and safety have not yet been proven in randomized trials. METHODS: We randomly assigned 6002 patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk just before PCI either to prasugrel (3.75 mg/day) monotherapy or to DAPT with aspirin (81–100 mg/day) and prasugrel (3.75 mg/day) after loading of 20 mg of prasugrel in both groups. The coprimary end points were major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5) for superiority and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) for noninferiority with a relative 50% margin. RESULTS: The full analysis set population consisted of 5966 patients (no-aspirin group, 2984 patients; DAPT group, 2982 patients; age, 71.6±11.7 years; men, 76.6%; acute coronary syndrome, 75.0%). Within 7 days before randomization, aspirin alone, aspirin with P2Y12 inhibitor, oral anticoagulants, and intravenous heparin infusion were given in 21.3%, 6.4%, 8.9%, and 24.5%, respectively. Adherence to the protocol-specified antiplatelet therapy was 88% in both groups at 1 month. At 1 month, the no-aspirin group was not superior to the DAPT group for the coprimary bleeding end point (4.47% and 4.71%; hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.75–1.20]; P _superiority =0.66). The no-aspirin group was noninferior to the DAPT group for the coprimary cardiovascular end point (4.12% and 3.69%; hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.87–1.45]; P _{non inferiority} =0.01). There was no difference in net adverse clinical outcomes and each component of coprimary cardiovascular end point. There was an excess of any unplanned coronary revascularization (1.05% and 0.57%; hazard ratio, 1.83 [95%CI, 1.01–3.30]) and subacute definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.58% and 0.17%; hazard ratio, 3.40 [95% CI, 1.26–9.23]) in the no-aspirin group compared with the DAPT group. CONCLUSIONS: The aspirin-free strategy using low-dose prasugrel compared with the DAPT strategy failed to attest superiority for major bleeding within 1 month after PCI but was noninferior for cardiovascular events within 1 month after PCI. However, the aspirin-free strategy was associated with a signal suggesting an excess of coronary events. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04609111.

We retrospectively examined the feasibility of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for de novo stenosis in large coronary vessels (LV; pre- or postprocedural reference vessel diameter ≥ 2.75 mm) in comparison with placement of drug-eluting stents (DESs).Consecutive de novo stenotic lesions in the LV electively and successfully treated with either PCB (n = 73) or DESs (n = 81) from January 2016 to December 2018 at our center were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence of target lesion failure (TLF), including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The impact of PCB on TLF was examined using Cox proportional hazards models by including 39 variables. The secondary endpoint, angiographic restenosis, defined as a follow-up percent diameter stenosis > 50, was examined in angiographic follow-up lesions after PCB angioplasty (n = 56) and DES placement (n = 53). This retrospective investigation was conducted in July 2022.The mean PCB size and length were 3.23 ± 0.42 and 18.4 ± 4.3 mm, respectively. The TLF frequency in the PCB group (6.8% during the mean observational interval of 1536 ± 538 days) was not significantly different from that in the DES group (14.6%, 1344 ± 606 days, P = 0.097). PCB was not a significant predictor of TLF in the univariate analysis (hazard ratio: 0.424; 95%CI: 0.15-1.21; P = 0.108). There was no angiographic restenosis after PCB angioplasty.The present observational single-center study showed that PCB for de novo stenosis in the LV had no significant adverse impact on TLF and had favorable angiographic outcomes.

Aim: We examined the impact of baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC) on major cardiac adverse events (MACE) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) during a long-term secondary prevention. Method: CEC was measured using a cell-based efflux system in (3)[H]-cholesterol-labeled J774 macrophages in apolipoprotein B-depleted plasma between January 2011 and January 2013. Patients with CAD were divided into 2 groups as a boundary CEC value of 1: 0.19 ≤ CEC ＜1 (impaired CEC group, mean CEC of 0.76±0.16, n=136), and 1 ≤ CEC ≤ 2.08 (enhanced CEC group, 1.20±0.19, n=44). MACE, comprised the incidence of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and any revascularizations (RV) without restenosis approximately 1 year after vascularization, was retrospectively investigated at September 2019. Impact of enhanced CEC on MACE among 22 variables was examined by applying a Cox proportional hazard model. Result: The frequency of MACE in impaired CEC group (16.9%, mean observational interval of 2111±888 days) was significantly higher than that in enhanced CEC group (2.3%, 2,252±685, p=0.013), largely driven by the significantly higher RV incidence (14.0 % versus 2.3 %, p=0.032). Enhancement of CEC was the significant predictor of MACE (hazard ratio: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.013-0.879; p=0.038). Conclusion: A baseline CEC level of more than 1 in patients with CAD brought favorable long-term clinical outcomes, suggesting that CEC is a useful prognostic and therapeutic surrogate for secondary prevention of CAD.

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the feasibility of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for de novo lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) by comparing with drug-eluting stent (DES) placement. Methods: By a systematic literature search, nine (five randomized controlled, two retrospective propensity-score matched, and two retrospective baseline-balanced) studies comparing the midterm clinical and angiographic outcomes after PCB angioplasty and DES placement were included, yielding 974 and 1130 ACS cases in PCB and DES groups, respectively. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiac mortality (CM), all-cause mortality (ACM), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Late luminal loss (LLL) and bleeding events (BLD) were also estimated. Results: The frequencies of MACE in PCB and DES groups were 8.42% and 10.62%, respectively. PCB angioplasty had no significant impacts on all of MACE (risk ratio: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.68–1.18, p = 0.44), CM, ACM, MI, TVR, TLR, BLD, and LLL, compared to DES placement in random-effects model. Conclusions: The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed the feasibility of PCB angioplasty for the de novo lesions in patients with ACS in comparison with DES placement by the emergent procedures.