Related Experiment Videos
Cardiovascular Outcomes in Response to Achieved LDL-C Levels After PCI in ACS and CCS
Yu Kataoka1, Stephen J Nicholls2, Kausik K Ray3
1Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Cerebral & Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Japan.
Insights
Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) benefit more from intensive LDL-C control than those with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). Achieving lower LDL-C levels significantly reduces major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in ACS patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Preventive Cardiology
- Lipid Management
Background:
- Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) carries higher risks of recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) than chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).
- Current guidelines recommend uniform low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals for both ACS and CCS.
- Intensified preventive management, particularly LDL-C control, is crucial for ACS patients.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare cardiovascular outcomes between ACS and CCS patients after achieving guideline-recommended LDL-C control.
- To evaluate the impact of different achieved LDL-C levels on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
Main Methods:
- A multicenter retrospective observational study (ACTION-LDLC) analyzed 2560 Japanese patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).
- Patients were categorized into ACS (n=1682) and CCS (n=878) groups.
- Risk of MACE (cardiac death, non-fatal MI, non-culprit coronary revascularization) was assessed based on achieved LDL-C levels (<55, 55-69, ≥70 mg/dL) 8 weeks post-PCI.
Main Results:
- LDL-C <55 mg/dL was achieved in 29.4% of ACS and 32.5% of CCS patients.
- Lower achieved LDL-C levels were associated with reduced MACE risk in both ACS (p<0.001) and CCS (p=0.040).
- ACS patients achieving LDL-C <55 mg/dL had significantly lower standardized 3-year MACE rates (4.4% vs. 9.9% in CCS) and greater absolute risk reductions compared to CCS.
- In ACS patients with LDL-C <55 mg/dL, achieving LDL-C <40 mg/dL further reduced MACE risk (log-rank p=0.017).
- Patients failing to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL showed substantially increased MACE risk in ACS compared to CCS (30.9% vs. 15.2%).
Conclusions:
- Distinct cardiovascular risk profiles exist concerning LDL-C control in ACS versus CCS.
- Achieving stricter LDL-C goals, potentially below <55 mg/dL or even <40 mg/dL, may be particularly important for reducing MACE in ACS patients.
- Current uniform LDL-C guidelines may not be optimal for differentiating risk stratification and management intensity between ACS and CCS.
Background:
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) exhibits greater risks of recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease compared to chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), suggesting the need for more intensified preventive management, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control. However, current guidelines advocate the "same" LDL-C goals in both ACS and CCS.
Objectives:
The authors aimed to compare cardiovascular outcomes following attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C control between ACS and CCS.
Methods:
This multicenter retrospective observational study (ACTION-LDLC; jRCT 1050260064) analyzed 2,560 Japanese patients with coronary artery disease (ACS/CCS = 1,682/878). Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiac-caused death + nonfatal MI + coronary revascularization in nonculprit segments) was compared according to achieved LDL-C levels 8 weeks after percutaneous coronary intervention (<55, 55-69 and ≥70 mg/dL) in ACS and CCS, respectively.
Results:
LDL-C <55 mg/dL was achieved in 29.4% and 32.5% of patients with ACS and CCS, respectively (P = 0.124). During the 3.7- and 3.8-year observation, achieving lower LDL-C levels was associated with reduced MACE risks in ACS (P < 0.001) and CCS (P = 0.040). Notably, lower standardized 3-year MACE rates (ACS = 4.4%, CCS = 9.9%, P < 0.001) and greater absolute risk differences (from ≥70 to <55 mg/dL: ACS = -26.5%, CCS = -5.3%, P < 0.001; from 55-69 to <55 mg/dL: ACS = -11.5%, CCS = -1.1%, P < 0.001) following achieved LDL-C <55 mg/dL were observed in ACS compared to CCS. Furthermore, in patients with achieved LDL-C <55 mg/dL (n = 780), an even lower risk of standardized 3-year MACE existed in ACS patients achieving LDL-C <40 mg/dL (log-rank P = 0.017). In contrast, in those who did not achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL, risks of standardized 3-year MACE substantially increased in ACS compared to CCS (30.9% vs 15.2%, P < 0.001).
Conclusions:
Distinct cardiovascular risks with LDL-C control exist in ACS compared to CCS, suggesting the potential importance of achieving stricter LDL-C goals in ACS patients.
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Atherosclerosis III: Management
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome II: Pathophysiology and Clinical Manifestations
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies