Differential statin intensity and outcomes in patients following myocardial infarction with very low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

0Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Despite increasing evidence on the benefits of statin therapy for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), differential outcomes in accordance with statin intensity have not been evaluated in patients with AMI and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels < 55 mg/dL. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of high-and moderate-intensity statin therapy in this population. Methods: A total of 752 participants with AMI and LDL-C levels < 55 mg/dL from a Korean nationwide multicenter observational cohort (2016–2020) were included and categorized into two groups: high-intensity statin group (n = 384) and moderate-intensity statin group (n = 368). The primary outcome was 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox models were used to determine whether statin intensity independently influenced the primary outcome. Results: Compared to the moderate-intensity statin group, the high-intensity statin group had a comparable risk of MACCE in all Cox models and PSM-adjusted analyses. The cumulative incidence of MACCE was comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: Statin intensity appeared to have no significant impact on clinical outcomes in AMI patients with LDL-C levels < 55 mg/dL. These results underscore the need for further investigations aimed at refining treatment strategies for this specific patient cohort, potentially reducing treatment-related burdens without compromising clinical effectiveness.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Oh, S., Kim, J. H., Cho, K. H., Kim, M. C., Sim, D. S., Hong, Y. J., … Jeong, M. H. (2024). Differential statin intensity and outcomes in patients following myocardial infarction with very low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Cardiology Journal, 31(6), 802–813. https://doi.org/10.5603/cj.99136

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free