Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Clinical outcome of statin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction propensity-score matching analysis

  • Mi Seon Ji
  • , Myung Ho Jeong*
  • , Young keun Ahn
  • , Sang Hyung Kim
  • , Young Jo Kim
  • , Shung Chull Chae
  • , Taek Jong Hong
  • , In Whan Seong
  • , Jei Keon Chae
  • , Chong Jin Kim
  • , Myeong Chan Cho
  • , Seung Woon Rha
  • , Jang Ho Bae
  • , Ki Bae Seung
  • , Seung Jung Park
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Chonnam National University
  • Yeungnam University
  • Kyungpook National University
  • Pusan National University
  • Chungnam National University
  • Chungbuk National University
  • Kyung Hee University
  • Korea University
  • Konyang University
  • The Catholic University of Korea
  • University of Ulsan

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)50-59
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Volume225
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016.12.15

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Ezetimibe simvastatin combination
  • Myocardial infarction
  • Statins

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical outcome of statin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction propensity-score matching analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this