Kim, Min-Chul;Ahn, Young-Keun;Jang, Su-Young;Cho, Kyung-Hoon;Hwang, Seung-Hwan;Lee, Min-Goo;Ko, Jum-Suk;Park, Keun-Ho;Sim, Doo-Sun;Yoon, Nam-Sik;Yoon, Hyun-Ju;Kim, Kye-Hun;Hong, Young-Joon;Park, Hyung-Wook;Kim, Ju-Han;Jeong, Myung-Ho;Cho, Jeong-Gwan;Park, Jong-Chun;Kang, Jung-Chaee
294
Background/Aims: A controversy exists about which statin is preferable for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and clinical impacts of different statins according to lipophilicity have not been established. Methods: The 1,124 patients with AMI included in the present study were divided into hydrophilic- and lipophilic-statin groups. In-hospital complications (defined as death, cardiogenic shock, ventricular arrhythmia, infection, bleeding, and renal insufficiency, and other fatal arrhythmias), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause death, re-myocardial infarction, re-percutaneous coronary intervention (re-PCI), and surgical revascularization were analyzed during a 1-year clinical follow-up. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, and in-hospital complication rates showed no between-group differences (11.7% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.688). Although MACE at the 1- and 6-month clinical follow-ups occurred more in hydrophilic statin group I (1 month: 10.0% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.001; 6 month: 19.9% vs. 14.2%, p = 0.022), no significant difference in MACE was observed at the 1-year follow-up (21.5% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.172). Both statin groups showed similar efficacy for reducing serum lipid concentrations. A Cox-regression analysis showed that the use of a hydrophilic statin did not predict 1-year MACE, all-cause death, AMI, or re-PCI. Conclusions: Although short-term cardiovascular outcomes were better in the lipophilic-statin group, 1-year outcomes were similar in patients with AMI who were administered hydrophilic and lipophilic statins. In other words, the type of statin did not influence 1-year outcomes in patients with AMI.