P830Differences in the usefulness of aggressive lipid-lowering therapy among single-vessel and multi-vessel coronary artery disease patients: HIJ-PROPER sub-study

Abstract

Abstract Background Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with multi-vessel disease (MVD) are at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. Previous study, examining stable atherosclerotic cardiac disease, reported that aggressive lipid-lowering therapy was more beneficial in MVD patients than in single-vessel disease (SVD) patients. However, no report has investigated the effects of aggressive lipid-lowering treatment according to the number of diseased coronary arteries in ACS patients. Purpose The purpose of the present study was to elucidate the efficacy of aggressive lipid-lowering therapy in ACS patients with MVD and SVD in modern early invasive strategy era. Methods The study population was derived from the HIJ-PROPER study, in which, ACS patients with dyslipidemia were randomized to pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy (targeting LDL-C less than 70mg/dl) or pitavastatin-monotherapy (targeting LDL-C less than 90mg/dl). In the present study, the treatment efficacy was compared between patients with MVD and SVD. The primary end point was a composite of major advanced cardiovascular events (MACEs), including all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and ischemia driven revascularization. Results We identified 1702 eligible patients (mean age, 65.6 years; male, 75.6%); 869 patients (51.1%) had MVD and 833 (48.9%) patients had SVD. The rate of acute revascularization was 96.2%. The incidence of MACEs was significantly higher in MVD group compared to SVD group (43.7% vs 25.9%, hazard ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval 1.65–2.31, p<0.001). In MVD group, there was no significant difference in MACEs between pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy and pitavastatin-monotherapy group. (43.5% vs. 43.9%, 1.0, 0.82–1.23; p=0.95). However, in SVD group, pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy showed significantly fewer MACEs than pitavastatin-monotherapy (34.6% vs. 47.4%, 0.72, 0.55–0.94, p=0.02). (Figure) Conclusion This study showed that ACS patients with SVD enjoyed significantly greater benefits from pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy compared with pitavastatin monotherapy, whereas the patients with MVD did not. High rate of revascularization in acute phase of ACS might affect the efficacy of aggressive lipid-lowering therapy and our results in the present study suggest different treatment approach would be necessary in ACS patients with MVD in modern early invasive strategy era.