In:
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 17, No. 6 ( 2022-6-15), p. e0269301-
Abstract:
The available data are not sufficient to understand the clinical impact of statin intensity in elderly patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods Using the COREA-AMI registry, we sought to compare the clinical impact of high- versus low-to-moderate-intensity statin in younger ( 〈 75 years old) and elderly (≥75 years old) patients. Of 10,719 patients, we included 8,096 patients treated with drug-eluting stents. All patients were classified into high-intensity versus low-to-moderate-intensity statin group according to statin type and dose at discharge. The primary end point was target-vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel MI, or target-lesion revascularization (TLR) from 1 month to 12 months after index PCI. Results In younger patients, high-intensity statin showed the better clinical outcomes than low-to-moderate-intensity statin (TVF: 79 [5.4%] vs. 329 [6.8%] , adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59–0.99; P = 0.038). However, in elderly patients, the incidence rates of the adverse clinical outcomes were similar between two statin-intensity groups (TVF: 38 [11.4%] vs. 131 [10.6%] , aHR 1.1; 95% CI 0.76–1.59; P = 0.63). Conclusions In this AMI cohort underwent PCI, high-intensity statin showed the better 1-year clinical outcomes than low-to-moderate-intensity statin in younger patients. Meanwhile, the incidence rates of adverse clinical events between high- and low-to-moderate-intensity statin were not statistically different in elderly patients. Further randomized study with large elderly population is warranted.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1932-6203
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.g003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.g004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.t001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.t002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.t003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.t004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.s004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.s005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.s006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.r001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.r002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.r003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.r004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.r005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.r006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.r007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.r008
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.r009
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0269301.r010
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2022
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2267670-3
Permalink