北原 秀喜

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding whether anemia is associated with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Patients with AF undergoing PCI at 15 institutions between January 2015 and March 2021 were included in this analysis. Based on the baseline hemoglobin levels, moderate to severe anemia was defined as hemoglobin levels <11 g/dL, and mild anemia was defined as hemoglobin levels 11-12.9 g/dL for men and 11-11.9 g/dL for women. Clinical outcomes within 1 year, including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke) and major bleeding events (BARC 3 or 5), were compared among patients with moderate/severe anemia, mild anemia, and no anemia. RESULTS: In a total of 746 enrolled patients, 119 (16.0%) and 168 (22.5%) patients presented with moderate/severe and mild anemia. The incidence of MACE (22.5%, 11.0%, and 9.1%, log-rank p < 0.001), all-cause death (20.0%, 7.2%, and 4.8%, log-rank p < 0.001), and major bleeding events (10.7%, 6.5%, and 2.7%, log-rank p < 0.001) were the highest in the moderate/severe anemia group compared with the mild and no anemia groups. Multivariable Cox regression analyses determined moderate/severe anemia as an independent predictor for MACE (p = 0.008), all-cause death (p = 0.005), and major bleeding events (p = 0.031) at 1 year after PCI. CONCLUSION: Moderate/severe anemia was significantly associated with the higher incidence of MACE and all-cause death as well as major bleeding events compared with mild and no anemia in AF patients undergoing PCI.

The diagnosis of vasospastic angina (VSA) according to Japanese guidelines involves an initial intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation test in the left coronary artery (LCA) followed by testing in the right coronary artery (RCA). However, global variations in test protocols often lead to the omission of ACh provocation in the RCA, potentially resulting in the underdiagnosis of VSA. This study assessed the validity of the LCA-only ACh provocation approach for the VSA diagnosis and whether vasoreactivity in the LCA aids in determining further provocation in the RCA. A total of 273 patients who underwent sequential intracoronary ACh provocation testing in the LCA and RCA were included. Patients with a positive ACh provocation test in the LCA were excluded. Relations between vasoreactivity in the LCA and ACh test outcomes (positivity and adverse events) in the RCA were evaluated. In patients with negative ACh test results in the LCA, subsequent ACh testing was positive in the RCA in 23 of 273 (8.4%) patients. In patients with minimal LCA vasoconstriction (<25%), only 3.0% had a positive ACh test in the RCA, whereas the ACh test in the RCA was positive in 13.5% of those with LCA constriction of 25% to 90% (p = 0.002). No major adverse events occurred during ACh testing in the RCA. In conclusion, for the VSA diagnosis, the omission of ACh provocation in the RCA may be clinically acceptable, particularly when vasoconstriction induced by ACh injection was minimal in the LCA. Further studies are needed to define ACh provocation protocols worldwide.

Background: We previously developed a risk-scoring system for heart failure (HF) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), namely "HF time-points (HFTPs)". In the original HFTPs, the presence of HF on admission, during hospitalization, and at short-term follow-up was individually scored. This study examined whether the revised HFTPs, with additional scoring of previous HF, provide better predictivity. Methods: This multicenter registry included a total of 1331 patients with acute MI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. HF was evaluated at four time-points before and after acute MI onset: (1) a history of HF; (2) elevated natriuretic peptide levels on admission; (3) in-hospital HF events; and (4) elevated natriuretic peptide levels at a median of 31 days after the onset. When HF was present at each time-point, one point was assigned to a risk scoring system, namely the original and revised HFTPs, ranging from 0 to 3 and from 0 to 4. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and HF rehospitalization after discharge. Results: Of the 1331 patients, 65 (4.9%) had the primary outcome events during a median follow-up period of 507 (interquartile range, 335-1106) days. The increase in both original and revised HFTPs was associated with an increased risk of the primary outcomes in a stepwise fashion with similar diagnostic ability. Conclusions: The original and revised HFTPs were both predictive of long-term HF-related outcomes in patients with acute MI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Yet, the original HFTPs may be sufficient to estimate HF risks after MI.

Patients with previous atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are typically managed by secondary prevention modalities; however, they may experience recurrent events. In acute myocardial infarction (MI), the prognostic effect of preexisting ASCVD on the short- and long-term outcomes remains uncertain. This retrospective, multicenter registry included 2,475 patients with acute MI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Previous ASCVD was defined as a history of ischemic events in the coronary, cerebral, and peripheral arterial territories. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to preexisting ASCVD. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, and ischemic stroke during hospitalization and after discharge. The bleeding outcomes were also evaluated. Of the 2,475 patients, 475 (19.2%) had previous ASCVD. Patients with previous ASCVD were older and likely to have more co-morbidities than those without ASCVD. During hospitalization, the MACE rates were higher in the ASCVD group than in the non-ASCVD group (16.4% vs 9.6%, p <0.001). Similarly, during a median follow-up of 542 days after discharge, patients with previous ASCVD had an increased risk of MACEs than those without ASCVD (13.4% vs 5.6%, p <0.001). The multivariable analyses identified previous ASCVD as a factor that was significantly associated with MACEs after discharge. Major bleeding events occurred more frequently in the ASCVD group than in the non-ASCVD group. In conclusion, preexisting ASCVD was often observed in patients with acute MI and was particularly associated with long-term ischemic outcomes after discharge; thus, further clinical investigations are needed in this vulnerable patient subset.