BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of 3 to 6 months of DAPT over 12 months after complex PCI. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of the HOST-IDEA (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis-Coronary Intervention With Next-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms and Abbreviated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) randomized trial which enrolled patients undergoing PCI with third-generation drug-eluting stents was performed. Complex PCI was defined by any of the following: ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation PCI with 2-stenting, total stent length ≥60 mm, left main PCI, or heavy calcification. The major end points were target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization for ischemic outcomes, and major bleeding, defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 or 5, for bleeding outcomes at 12 months. RESULTS: Among 1992 patients, 624 underwent complex PCI. The complex PCI group had clinical features associated with high bleeding risk. A shortened DAPT duration did not increase the risk of target lesion failure, with hazard ratios of 0.818 (95% CI, 0.403–1.659) for the complex PCI group and 1.282 (95% CI, 0.506–3.249) for the noncomplex PCI group ( P _interaction =0.451). Conversely, it decreased the risk of major bleeding in the complex PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.269 [95% CI, 0.075–0.965]), but not in the noncomplex PCI group (hazard ratio, 1.534 [95% CI, 0.627–3.754], showing a significant interaction; P _interaction =0.029). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing complex PCI with a third-generation drug-eluting stent, a 3- to 6-month duration of DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of bleeding without an increased risk of ischemic events compared with 12-month DAPT. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT02601157.

We aimed to measure the diagnostic accuracy of the deep learning model (DLM) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) on a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) according to culprit artery sorts. From January 2017 to December 2019, we recruited patients with STEMI who received more than one stent insertion for culprit artery occlusion. The DLM was trained with STEMI and normal sinus rhythm ECG for external validation. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of DLM for STEMI according to the three different culprit arteries. The outcomes were measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity (SEN), and specificity (SPE) using the Youden index. A total of 60,157 ECGs were obtained. These included 117 STEMI-ECGs and 60,040 normal sinus rhythm ECGs. When using DLM, the AUROC for overall STEMI was 0.998 (0.996–0.999) with SEN 97.4% (95.7–100) and SPE 99.2% (98.1–99.4). There were no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy within the three culprit arteries. The baseline wanders in false positive cases (83.7%, 345/412) significantly interfered with the accurate interpretation of ST elevation on an ECG. DLM showed high diagnostic accuracy for STEMI detection, regardless of the type of culprit artery. The baseline wanders of the ECGs could affect the misinterpretation of DLM.

Aims: The purpose of this study were to identify the usefulness of screening for PFO using agitated saline echocardiography (ASE) and characteristics and prognosis of patients with suggestive of patent foramen ovale (PFO). Methods: Three hundred three patients (mean age, 53 ± 9 years; 199 [66%] men) admitted with acute stroke or suspicion of stroke were included. Patients were classified into those with and without right-to-left shunt (RLS) according to the ASE results (positive ASE [n = 92] vs. negative ASE [n = 211]). Fifty-one out of ninety-two patients with positive ASE and twenty-one out of two hundred eleven patients with negative ASE underwent TEE with ASE to confirm PFO. Results: Ninety-two were positive for ASE and thirty-six of the fifty-one patients who underwent TEE were confirmed as having PFO. Of the patients with RLS grade 1, 50% were diagnosed with PFO and all patients with RLS grade ≥ 2 were diagnosed with PFO. All patients with negative ASE had no PFO (sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 58%). Patients with positive ASE were younger, had a lower body mass, and a lower prevalence of hypertension. The positive ASE patients had a higher mean Sʹ velocity and better diastolic function. Four of ninety-one patients with positive ASE and thirteen of one hundred seventy-seven showed recurrence of stroke and suspicion of stroke. Conclusion: Transthoracic ASE is a good method to screen for PFO. Patients with suggestive of PFO had lower risk factors, less atherosclerosis, and better cardiac performance.

Routine follow-up coronary angiography (CAG) did not affect long-term clinical outcome after second- or third-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in clinically stable patients.

Background: The introduction of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) is expected to improve treatment compliance. Methods: There were 181 subjects who were randomized to three groups: ezetimibe–rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg, ezetimibe–rosuvastatin 10/20 mg, and telmisartan 80 mg. The primary outcomes were change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) and percentage change in low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to baseline at week 8. Results: The least-square mean (SE) in MSSBP changes between the ezetimibe–rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg group and the ezetimibe–rosuvastatin 10/20 mg group were −25.81 (2.34) mmHg and −7.66 (2.45) mmHg. There was a significant difference between the two groups (−18.15 (2.83) mmHg, 95% CI −23.75 to −12.56, p < 0.0001). Changes in least-square mean (SE) in LDL-C between the ezetimibe–rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg group and the telmisartan 80 mg group were −63.82 (2.87)% and −2.48 (3.12)%. A significant difference was observed between the two groups (−61.34 (3.33)%, 95% CI −67.91 to −54.78, p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Ezetimibe–rosuvastatin plus telmisartan treatment is effective and safe when compared to either ezetimibe–rosuvastatin or telmisartan.

Background and Objectives: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be helpful in patients with cardiogenic shock associated with myocardial infarction, and its early use can improve the patient survival rate. In this study, we report a mortality rate-difference analysis that examined the time and location of shock occurrence. Materials and Methods: We enrolled patients who underwent ECMO due to cardiogenic shock related to myocardial infarction and assigned them to either a pre- or post-admission shock group. The primary outcome was the 1-month mortality rate; a subgroup analysis was conducted to assess the effect of bailout ECMO. Results: Of the 113 patients enrolled, 67 (38 with pre-admission shock, 29 with post-admission shock) were analysed. Asystole was more frequently detected in the pre-admission shock group than in the post-admission group. In both groups, the commonest culprit lesion location was in the left anterior descending artery. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed significantly more frequently and earlier in the pre-admission group. The 1-month mortality rate was significantly lower in the pre-admission group than in the post-admission group. Male sex and ECMO duration (≥6 days) were factors significantly related to the reduced mortality rate in the pre-admission group. In the subgroup analysis, the mortality rate was lower in patients receiving bailout ECMO than in those not receiving it; the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: ECMO application resulted in lower short-term mortality rate among patients with out-of-hospital cardiogenic shock onset than with in-hospital shock onset; early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and ECMO might be helpful in select patients.