Why the study?
Does atorvastatin titrated to target both LDL-C and hs-CRP reduce major adverse cardiac events compared to targeting LDL-C alone in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI?
Does atorvastatin titrated to target both LDL-C and hs-CRP reduce major adverse cardiac events compared to targeting LDL-C alone in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI?
Targeting both LDL-C and hs-CRP with statin therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI significantly reduces the incidence of major adverse cardiac events compared to targeting LDL-C alone.
Supports dual LDL-C/hs-CRP targeting with atorvastatin in ACS post-PCI; extends statin trials to inflammation-guided intensification.
To investigate the combination of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and Low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-C as the targets for statin treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This single-center, prospective, randomized study was performed in 400 patients treated with atorvastatin 40 mg/day for 1 month and then with atorvastatin 20 mg/day as maintenance. The patients were randomized to the LDL group (LDL-C target of < 2.07 mmol/L according to the Chinese dyslipidemia guidelines) and to the LDL-CRP group (LDL-C target of < 2.07 mmol/L and hs-CRP target of < 3 mg/L). The patients were followed up for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6, 12, and 18 months. The two groups had similar baseline characteristics and 391 patients completed the follow-up. No differences were found in LDL-C between the two groups, but a difference was found in hs-CRP at 12 and 18 months. There was a significant difference in revascularization (8.7% versus 3.6%, P = 0.04) and MACE (16.8% versus 9.7%; P = 0.04) between the LDL and LDL-CRP groups at 18 months. Compared to LDL-C as the single target, targeting both LDL-C and hs-CRP by statin therapy in patients with ACS could further reduce the incidence of MACE and the residual cardiovascular risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fang et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: