Akashi, Yoshihiro J.

Abstract Background Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) is emerging in the COVID era, but few studies have addressed "gamification", the use of game elements in non-game contexts. Purpose This pilot study investigates the applicability of gamification application to HBCR. Methods Patients who were hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome and agreed to undergo HBCR using a smartphone/smartwatch immediately after discharge were candidates for the study. The smartphone application included gamification, whereby the patients earned points for achieving exercise within an appropriate heart rate range and received feedback based on their points. The primary endpoint was the frequency of performing HBCR with the application from discharge to the date of the first outpatient visit. Secondary endpoints were the frequency of complications and correlations in several parameters of the application. Results The study included data from 16 patients. The mean duration of intervention was 29 ± 6 days. Total smartphone application use was 59.9% (282/471 days). Peak VO2 increased significantly after HBCR (18.4 ± 4.1 vs. 21.1 ± 5.4 mL/min/kg, p = 0.004) and the patients had no complications. Total application use was significantly positively correlated (r = 0.665, p = 0.007) with the application use persistence index (calculated by dividing the duration of application use in the second half of the intervention by the duration of use in the first half). Conclusion The smartphone application with gamification can be safely applied to HBCR. Continued use of the application creates a virtuous circle for patients, and gamification may be one of the keys to this.

Background: The majority of randomized controlled trials of revascularization decision-making excludes left main coronary artery disease (LMD). Therefore, contemporary clinical outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease and LMD with proven ischemia remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of physiologically significant LMD according to the treatment strategies of revascularization versus revascularization deferral. Methods: In this international multicenter registry of stable LMD interrogated with the instantaneous wave-free ratio, patients with physiologically significant ischemia (instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89) were analyzed according to the coronary revascularization (n=151) versus revascularization deferral (n=74). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. The secondary end points were as follows: cardiac death or spontaneous LMD-related myocardial infarction; and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. Results: At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (14.9%) in the revascularized group and 21 patients (28.4%) in the deferred group (hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20–0.89]; P =0.023). For the secondary end points, cardiac death or LMD-related myocardial infarction occurred significantly less frequently in the revascularized group (0.0% versus 8.1%; P =0.004). The rate of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem was also significantly lower in the revascularized group (5.4% versus 17.6%; hazard ratio, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.056–0.70]; P =0.012). Conclusions: In patients who underwent revascularization for stable coronary artery disease and physiologically significant LMD determined by instantaneous wave-free ratio, the long-term clinical outcomes were significantly improved as compared with those in whom revascularization was deferred.

Background: There is great degree of interobserver variability in the visual angiographic assessment of left main coronary disease (LMCD). Fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound are often used in this setting. The use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for evaluation of LMCD has not been well studied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of iFR in the assessment of angiographically intermediate LMCD. Methods: This is an international multicenter retrospective observational study of patients who underwent both iFR and intravascular ultrasound evaluation for angiographically intermediate LMCD. An independent core laboratory performed blinded off-line analysis of all intravascular ultrasound data. A minimum lumen area of 6 mm 2 was used as the cutoff for significant disease. Results: One hundred twenty-five patients (mean age, 68.4±9.5 years, 84.8% male) were included in this analysis. Receiver operating curve analysis showed that an iFR of ≤0.89 identified minimum lumen area <6 mm 2 with an area under the curve of 0.77 (77% sensitivity, 66% specificity; P <0.0001). Among the 69 patients without ostial left anterior descending artery or left circumflex artery disease, receiver operating curve analysis showed that an iFR of ≤0.89 identified minimum lumen area <6 mm 2 with an area under the curve of 0.84 (70% sensitivity, 84% specificity; P <0.0001). The correlation was not significantly different when the body surface area was considered. Conclusions: In this study, in patients with intermediate LMCD, iFR of ≤0.89 correlates with intravascular ultrasound minimum lumen area <6 mm 2 regardless of body surface area. The current study supports the use of iFR for the evaluation of intermediate LMCD.