학술논문
Impact of Dual Lipid-Lowering Strategy With Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin on Coronary Plaque Regression in Patients With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Multicenter Randomized Controlled PRECISE-IVUS Trial.
Document Type
Article
Author
Tsujita, Kenichi; Sugiyama, Seigo; Sumida, Hitoshi; Shimomura, Hideki; Yamashita, Takuro; Yamanaga, Kenshi; Komura, Naohiro; Sakamoto, Kenji; Oka, Hideki; Nakao, Koichi; Nakamura, Sunao; Ishihara, Masaharu; Matsui, Kunihiko; Sakaino, Naritsugu; Nakamura, Natsuki; Yamamoto, Nobuyasu; Koide, Shunichi; Matsumura, Toshiyuki; Fujimoto, Kazuteru; Tsunoda, Ryusuke
Source
Subject
*ANTILIPEMIC agents
*EZETIMIBE
*ATORVASTATIN
*PERCUTANEOUS coronary intervention
*CARDIOVASCULAR diseases
*PATIENTS
*RANDOMIZED controlled trials
*THERAPEUTICS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Language
ISSN
0735-1097
Abstract
Background Despite standard statin therapy, a majority of patients retain a high “residual risk” of cardiovascular events. Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of ezetimibe plus atorvastatin versus atorvastatin monotherapy on the lipid profile and coronary atherosclerosis in Japanese patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods This trial was a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Eligible patients who underwent PCI were randomly assigned to atorvastatin alone or atorvastatin plus ezetimibe (10 mg) daily. Atorvastatin was uptitrated with a treatment goal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <70 mg/dl. Serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound was performed at baseline and again at 9 to 12 months to quantify the coronary plaque response in 202 patients. Results The combination of atorvastatin/ezetimibe resulted in lower levels of LDL-C than atorvastatin monotherapy (63.2 ± 16.3 mg/dl vs. 73.3 ± 20.3 mg/dl; p < 0.001). For the absolute change in percent atheroma volume (PAV), the mean difference between the 2 groups (–1.538%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –3.079% to 0.003%) did not exceed the pre-defined noninferiority margin of 3%, but the absolute change in PAV did show superiority for the dual lipid-lowering strategy (–1.4%; 95% CI: –3.4% to –0.1% vs. –0.3%; 95% CI: –1.9% to 0.9% with atorvastatin alone; p = 0.001). For PAV, a significantly greater percentage of patients who received atorvastatin/ezetimibe showed coronary plaque regression (78% vs. 58%; p = 0.004). Both strategies had acceptable side effect profiles, with a low incidence of laboratory abnormalities and cardiovascular events. Conclusions Compared with standard statin monotherapy, the combination of statin plus ezetimibe showed greater coronary plaque regression, which might be attributed to cholesterol absorption inhibition–induced aggressive lipid lowering. (Plaque Regression With Cholesterol Absorption Inhibitor or Synthesis Inhibitor Evaluated by Intravascular Ultrasound [PRECISE-IVUS]; NCT01043380 ) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]