Clinical outcome of statin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction propensity-score matching analysis. (15th December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ji, Mi Seon; Jeong, Myung Ho; Ahn, Young keun; Kim, Sang Hyung; Kim, Young Jo; Chae, Shung Chull; Hong, Taek Jong; Seong, In Whan; Chae, Jei Keon; Kim, Chong Jin; Cho, Myeong Chan; Rha, Seung-Woon; Bae, Jang Ho; Seung, Ki Bae; Park, Seung Jung
• Is Part Of: International journal of cardiology. Volume 225(2016)
• Page Start: 50
• Page End: 59
• Publication Date: 2016-12-15
• Subjects: Ezetimibe simvastatin combination -- Statins -- Myocardial infarction; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.09.082
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-5273

Abstract

Abstract: Background: It is unclear whether simvastatin–ezetimibe could be an alternative therapy to high-intensity statin therapy in high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of simvastatin–ezetimibe and high-intensity statin therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and especially in those with high-risk factor. Methods: A total of 3520 AMI patients in the KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry) were classified into simvastatin–ezetimibe group (n = 1249) and high-intensity statin group (n = 2271). Multivariate analysis and propensity-score matching analysis were performed. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12-months follow-up. Results: In overall AMI patients, MACE occurred in 116 patients (9.3%) in simvastatin–ezetimibe group and 116 patients (5.1%) in high-intensity statin group. The difference in MACE between groups was driven by repeat revascularization (5.9% vs. 2.2%). After propensity matching analysis, simvastatin–ezetimibe was associated with a higher incidence of MACE than high-intensity statin therapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 3.090, 95% confidence interval: 1.715 to 5.566, p < 0.001). However, in patients with high-risk factors, such as diabetes, old age, or heart failure, simvastatin-ezetimibe had similar incidence of MACE compared with high-intensity statin therapy in further adjusted analysis. Conclusions: In overall AMI patients, high-intensity statin therapy had better clinical outcomes than simvastatin–ezetimibe. However, in patients with high-risk factor, simvastatin–ezetimibe had comparable clinical outcomes to high-intensity statin therapy. Therefore, simvastatin–ezetimibe could be used as an alternative to high-intensity statin therapy in such patients.