Gyu Chul Oh

Cha JJ, et al. Korean Circ J. 2027 ;57:e4. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2025.0412

Background: Evidence comparing different diuretic doses within fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) remains limited. We evaluated telmisartan/chlorthalidone FDCs according to chlorthalidone dose in patients with blood pressure (BP) inadequately controlled on telmisartan monotherapy. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind trial, 254 patients with uncontrolled BP [sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 and <180 mm Hg; sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <110 mm Hg] after a telmisartan run-in period were randomized (1:1:1) to receive either telmisartan/chlorthalidone FDCs (40/12.5 or 40/6.25 mg), or telmisartan 40 mg for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in sitting SBP from baseline to Week 8. Results: At Week 8, telmisartan/chlorthalidone FDCs demonstrated greater reductions in sitting SBP compared with telmisartan ­monotherapy: least-squares mean differences were −9.5 mm Hg [95% CI, −13.5 to −5.6] for the 40/12.5 mg and −6.1 mm Hg [95% CI, −10.4 to −1.9] for the 40/6.25 mg. BP control rates (target BP: SBP/DBP <140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg in patients with albuminuric chronic kidney disease or established cardiovascular disease) at Week 8 also favored telmisartan/chlorthalidone FDCs over telmisartan monotherapy (53.2% for the 40/12.5 mg and 43.0% for the 40/6.25 mg vs 32.9% for telmisartan 40 mg). Safety profiles were comparable among treatment groups. Conclusions: In patients inadequately controlled on telmisartan alone, FDCs of telmisartan with 2 different doses of chlorthalidone provided greater BP reduction than telmisartan monotherapy without increased safety risk, supporting its role as an effective and well-tolerated treatment option. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06291207.

Lee SY, et al. Korean Circ J. 2025 Jul;55:e97. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2024.0416

The role of statins after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has not been well established in an Asian context. In this study, the use of statins and their association with long-term health outcomes were evaluated in patients undergoing EVAR using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. Among the 8893 patients who underwent EVAR from 2008 to 2018, 3386 (38.1%) were on statins prior to the procedure. Patients using statins had a higher prevalence of comorbidities, such as hypertension (88.4% vs. 71.5%), diabetes mellitus (24.5% vs. 14.1%), and heart failure (21.6% vs. 13.1%), compared with non-users (all p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, statin use prior to EVAR was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78–0.92, p < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.86, p = 0.002). Statin use following EVAR was associated with a lower risk of adverse events, but not significantly so. Patients on statins both preceding and following EVAR had a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.91, p < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44–0.87, p = 0.007), compared with statin non-users. Among Korean patients undergoing EVAR, the persistent use of statins prior to and after the procedure was associated with a lower risk of mortality, compared with non-statin users.

Korean Circulation Journal 대한심장학회지 순환기 Oh GC, et al. Korean Circ J. 2023 May;53:e44. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2023.0098

Seung J, et al. J Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 Apr;2:e19. https://doi.org/10.54912/jci.2023.0003

The current study aimed to investigate the association between serum UA levels and the mortality rate of AMI patients. We analyzed 5888 patients with successfully revascularized AMI (mean age: 64.0 ± 12.7 years). The subjects were divided into the high UA group (uric acid >6.5 mg/dL for males, >5.8 mg/dL for females) or the normal UA group based on initial serum UA level measured at admission. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A total of 4141 (70.3%) and 1747 (29.7%) patients were classified into the normal UA group and high UA groups, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 5.02 (3.07, 7.55) years, 929 (21.5%) and 532 (34.1%) patients died in each group. Cox regression analysis identified high UA levels as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.69 [95% CI 1.52–1.88]; p < 0.001, adjusted HR 1.18 [95% CI: 1.05–1.32]; p = 0.005). The results were consistent after propensity-score matching and inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline differences. The predictive accuracies of conventional clinical factor discrimination and reclassification were significantly improved upon the addition of hyperuricemia (C-index 0.788 [95% CI 0.775–0.801]; p = 0.005, IDI 0.004 [95% CI 0.002–0.006]; p < 0.001, NRI 0.263 [95% CI 0.208–0.318]; p < 0.001).

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between a complex percutaneous coronary intervention (C-PCI) and long-term clinical outcomes in the AMI cohort. A total of 10,329 patients were categorized into the C-PCI and non-C-PCI groups. The primary ischemic endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and revascularization). The primary bleeding endpoint was the risk of overt bleeding (BARC 2, 3 or 5). The median follow-up duration was 4.9 (2.97, 7.16) years. The risks of MACEs and bleeding were significantly higher in the C-PCI group (hazard ratio (HR): 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.60 to 1.85; p < 0.001; and HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.50; p < 0.001, respectively). After propensity score matching, compared to the non-C-PCI group, the adjusted MACE rate in C-PCI remained significantly higher (p < 0.001), but no significant interaction (p = 0.273) was observed for bleeding. Significant differences in overt bleeding were observed only within the first three months (p = 0.024). The MACEs were consistently higher in the C-PCI group with or without severe comorbid conditions (p < 0.001 for both). Patients with AMI who undergo C-PCI experience worse long-term ischemic outcomes after successful PCI, regardless of the presence of severe comorbidities.

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of the HFA-PEFF score in predicting the long-term risks in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and an HFA-PEFF score ≥ 2. The subjects were divided according to their HFA-PEFF score into intermediate (2–3 points) and high (4–6 points) score groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Of 1018 patients with AMI and an HFA-PEFF score of ≥2, 712 (69.9%) and 306 (30.1%) were classified into the intermediate and high score groups, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 4.8 (3.2, 6.5) years, 114 (16.0%) and 87 (28.4%) patients died in each group. Multivariate Cox regression identified a high HFA-PEFF score as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.53, 95% CI: 1.15–2.04, p = 0.004]. The predictive accuracies for the discrimination and reclassification were significantly improved (C-index 0.750 [95% CI 0.712–0.789]; p = 0.049 and NRI 0.330 [95% CI 0.180–0.479]; p < 0.001) upon the addition of a high HFA-PEFF score to clinical risk factors. The model was better at predicting combined events of all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission (C-index 0.754 [95% CI 0.716–0.791]; p = 0.033, NRI 0.372 [95% CI 0.227–0.518]; p < 0.001). In the AMI cohort, the HFA-PEFF score can effectively predict the prognosis of patients with an HFA-PEFF score of ≥2.

Aims: Increased blood pressure (BP) and decreased heart rate (HR) are signs of stabilization in patients admitted for acute HF. Changes in BP and HR during admission and their correlation with outcomes were assessed in hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: A novel modified reverse shock index (mRSI), defined as the ratio between changes in systolic BP and HR during admission, was devised, and its prognostic value in the early outcomes of acute HF was assessed using the Korean Acute HF registry. Results: Among 2697 patients with HFrEF (mean age 65.8 ± 14.9 years, 60.6% males), patients with mRSI ≥1.25 at discharge were significantly younger and were more likely to have de novo HF. An mRSI ≥1.25 was associated with a significantly lower incidence of 60-day and 180-day all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–0.77; HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45–0.85, respectively], compared with 1 ≤ mRSI < 1.25 (all P < 0.001). Conversely, an mRSI <0.75 was associated with a significantly higher incidence of 60-day and 180-day all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.19–3.62; HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.53–3.27; all P < 0.001). The benefit associated with mRSI ≥1.25 was consistent in sub-group analyses. The correlation of mRSI and outcomes were also consistent regardless of admission SBP, presence of atrial fibrillation, or use of beta blockers at discharge. Conclusions: In patients hospitalized for HFrEF, the mRSI was a significant predictor of early outcomes. The mRSI could be used as a tool to assess patient status and guide physicians in treating patients with HFrEF.