Search

Aim Optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) intends to balance ischemic and bleeding risks. Various DAPT de-escalation strategies, defined as switching from a full-dose potent to a reduced dose or less potent P2Y12 inhibitor, have been evaluated in several ACS-PCI trials. We aimed to compare DAPT de-escalation to standard DAPT with full-dose potent P2Y12 inhibitors in ACS patients who underwent PCI. Methods and results PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials. Aspirin monotherapy trials were excluded. Five randomized trials (n = 10 779 patients) that assigned DAPT de-escalation (genetically guided to clopidogrel n = 1242; platelet function guided to clopidogrel n = 1304; unguided to clopidogrel n = 1672; unguided to lower dose n = 1170) vs. standard DAPT (control group n = 5391) were included in this analysis. DAPT de-escalation was associated with a significant reduction in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥2 bleeding (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42–0.78; I2 = 77%) as well as major adverse cardiac events, represented in most trials by the composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62–0.96; I2 = 0%). Notwithstanding the limited power, consistency was noted across various de-escalation strategies. Conclusion De-escalation of DAPT after PCI for ACS, both unguided and guided by genetic or platelet function testing (PFT), was associated with lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding and ischemic events as compared to standard DAPT with potent P2Y12 inhibitors based on five open-label RCTs reviewed.

Coronary stents have revolutionized the treatment of coronary artery disease. Compared with balloon angioplasty, bare-metal stents (BMSs) effectively prevented abrupt vessel closure but were limited by in-stent restenosis (ISR) due to smooth muscle cell proliferation and neointimal hyperplasia. The first-generation drug-eluting stent (DES), with its antiproliferative drug coating, offered substantial advantages over BMSs as it mitigated the risk of ISR. Nonetheless, they had several design limitations that increased the risk of late stent thrombosis. Significant advances in stent design, including thinner struts, enhanced polymers’ formulation, and more potent antiproliferative agents, have led to the introduction of new-generation DES with a superior safety profile. Cardiologists have over 20 different DES types to choose from, each with its unique features and characteristics. This review highlights the evolution of stent design and summarizes the clinical data on the different stent types. We conclude by discussing the clinical implications of stent design in high-risk subsets of patients.

Aims To evaluate the impact of perioperative P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy among patients undergoing cardiac surgery within 1 year of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results Patients undergoing cardiac surgery in the year post-PCI at three tertiary care centres between 2011 and 2018 were stratified into those who had received at least one dose of P2Y12 inhibitor prior to surgery (within 5 days for clopidogrel or prasugrel, or within 3 days for ticagrelor) and those who had not. The outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and bleeding. Among 20 279 PCI patients, 359 (1.8%) underwent cardiac surgery in the ensuing year, 76.3% of whom received coronary artery bypass grafts. Overall, 33 (9.2%) MACCEs and 85 (23.7%) bleeding events occurred within 30 days post-cardiac surgery. Perioperative P2Y12 inhibition (N = 133, 37%) was not associated with the risk of MACCEs or bleeding, despite numerically lower rates of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis (0.0% vs. 2.6%; P = 0.089). Patients who continued the P2Y12 inhibitor until the day of surgery (N = 60, 17%) had significantly higher bleeding risk [adjusted odds ratio 2.93, 95% confidence interval 1.53–5.59)]. Predictors of MACCEs included a time interval from PCI to cardiac surgery of ≤30 days and reduced ejection fraction, whereas urgent/emergent surgery predicted bleeding. Chronic kidney disease and myocardial infarction as indication for PCI predicted both MACCEs and bleeding. Conclusion Among patients undergoing cardiac surgery in the year after PCI, the perioperative risk of ischaemic and bleeding events might be influenced by P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in addition to other risk parameters, including the timing and urgency of the procedure.

Aims Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have cardiovascular (CV) benefits in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether these medications improve CV outcomes irrespective of heart failure history or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in HFrEF remains unknown. Methods and results All randomized, placebo-controlled trials of SGLT-2 inhibitors reporting similar CV outcomes were searched in PubMed from 1 January 2010 to 1 October 2021. The primary outcome was the composite of hospitalization for heart failure or CV death. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as effect estimates and calculated with a random-effects model. Data from 11 trials and a total of 66 957 patients (n = 36 758 SGLT-2 group, n = 30 199 placebo group) were included. SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure or CV death in patients with (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71–0.80) and without (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68–0.86; Pinteraction = 0.69) heart failure. Patients with (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80–0.95) and without (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73–0.95; Pinteraction = 0.67) heart failure treated with SGLT-2 inhibitors had a reduction in all-cause mortality. Reduction in the primary outcome was consistently observed in HFrEF patients with (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59–0.78) and without (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71–0.99; Pinteraction = 0.13) severely reduced LVEF, and in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.92; Pinteraction = 0.65). Conclusion SGLT-2 inhibitors improved CV outcomes irrespective of heart failure history or type, and severity of LVEF reduction.

Aims Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (C-PCI) is associated with an increased risk of ischaemic and bleeding complications. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a 1–3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimen followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after C-PCI. Methods and results We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing a 1–3-month DAPT regimen followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with standard (≥12 months) DAPT in patients undergoing C-PCI. C-PCI criteria and the co-primary bleeding and ischaemic outcomes were determined according to each trial. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. All outcomes were evaluated at 12 months after randomization. We used hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) as a metric of choice for treatment effects with random-effects models. Among 8299 screened studies, five randomized trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In the pooled population of 34 615 patients, 8818 (25.5%) underwent C-PCI. As compared with standard DAPT, a 1–3-month DAPT regimen followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduced the bleeding risk in C-PCI (HR:0.66, 95% CI:0.44–0.98) and non-C-PCI (HR:0.60, 95% CI:0.45–0.79) patients (P-interaction = 0.735). Furthermore, the risk for the primary ischaemic endpoint was similar in patients randomized to either arm, with significant effect modification by PCI complexity showing an enhanced benefit of 1–3-month DAPT in patients undergoing C-PCI (C-PCI, HR:0.69, 95% CI:0.48–1.00; non-C-PCI, HR:1.04, 95% CI:0.84–1.30; P-interaction = 0.028). Conclusion As compared with a standard DAPT, a 1–3-month DAPT regimen followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduced bleeding complications after C-PCI without increasing the risk of ischaemic events. PROSPERO-registered (CRD42021259271)

BACKGROUND: Prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are often older and present with multiple comorbidities. Ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has emerged as an effective bleeding-avoidance strategy among high-risk patients. AIMS: We aimed to examine the effects of ticagrelor with or without aspirin in prior CABG patients undergoing PCI within the TWILIGHT trial. METHODS: After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were randomised to either aspirin or placebo, in addition to ticagrelor, for 12 months and compared by prior CABG status. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. RESULTS: Out of 7,119 patients, a total of 703 (10.8%) patients had prior CABG within the randomised cohort. Prior CABG patients had more comorbidities and a higher incidence of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding and death, MI or stroke at 1 year after randomisation, compared with patients without prior CABG. Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with significantly less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding among prior CABG patients compared with DAPT (4.9% vs 9.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.90; pinteraction=0.676) and similar rates of death, MI or stroke (10.0% vs 8.7%, HR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.87; pinteraction=0.484). When comparing target vessel type, treatment effects were consistent among graft- and native-vessel interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with prior CABG, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced bleeding without compromising ischaemic outcomes compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin.

Aims To evaluate the acute and chronic patterns of myocardial injury among patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and their mid-term outcomes. Methods and results Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who had a hospital encounter within the Mount Sinai Health System (New York City) between 27 February 2020 and 15 October 2020 were evaluated for inclusion. Troponin levels assessed between 72 h before and 48 h after the COVID-19 diagnosis were used to stratify the study population by the presence of acute and chronic myocardial injury, as defined by the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Among 4695 patients, those with chronic myocardial injury (n = 319, 6.8%) had more comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease and heart failure, while acute myocardial injury (n = 1168, 24.9%) was more associated with increased levels of inflammatory markers. Both types of myocardial injury were strongly associated with impaired survival at 6 months [chronic: hazard ratio (HR) 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.44–5.06; acute: HR 4.72, 95% CI 4.14–5.36], even after excluding events occurring in the first 30 days (chronic: HR 3.97, 95% CI 2.15–7.33; acute: HR 4.13, 95% CI 2.75–6.21). The mortality risk was not significantly different in patients with acute as compared with chronic myocardial injury (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94–1.36), except for a worse prognostic impact of acute myocardial injury in patients Conclusion Chronic and acute myocardial injury represent two distinctive patterns of cardiac involvement among COVID-19 patients. While both types of myocardial injury are associated with impaired survival at 6 months, mortality rates peak in the early phase of the infection but remain elevated even beyond 30 days during the convalescent phase.

Diabetes mellitus is a complex disease that leads to long-term damage to various organ systems. Among the numerous cardiovascular disease-related complications, thrombotic events frequently occur in patients with diabetes. Although guidelines exist for treating and preventing most diabetes-related co-morbidities, the evidence on antithrombotic therapy in primary and secondary prevention is limited due to the scarcity of randomized trials dedicated to patients with diabetes mellitus. Most of the available data are derived from studies that only included a small proportion of patients with diabetes. The present review provides an overview of the status of knowledge on antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in patients with diabetes, focusing on the risk-benefit balance of these therapies and future treatment strategies.Lay abstract Patients with diabetes are at increased risk for heart diseases. In fact, heart attacks often occur silently in diabetic patients. Other complications, such as acute decrease in brain or limb perfusion, are also common especially in high-risk diabetic patients. Over the last decade, several drugs for the treatment of diabetes and its associated complications have emerged. Among these therapies, antithrombotic drugs play a pivotal role in preventing these accidents. However, the evidence on antithrombotic drugs use in prevention is limited due to the scarcity of studies dedicated to patients with diabetes. In this review, we provide an aerial view of the latest evidence on the optimal use of antithrombotic drugs in patients with diabetes and heart disease.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis, providing a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients deemed to be at prohibitive surgical risk, but also for selected patients at intermediate or low surgical risk. Nonetheless, there still exist uncertainties regarding the optimal management of patients undergoing TAVR. The selection of the optimal bioprosthetic valve for each patient represents one of the most challenging dilemmas for clinicians, given the large number of currently available devices. Limited follow-up data from landmark clinical trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, coupled with the typically elderly and frail population of patients undergoing TAVR, has led to inconclusive data on valve durability. Recommendations about the use of one device over another in given each patient’s clinical and procedural characteristics are largely based on expert consensus. This review aims to evaluate the available evidence on the performance of different devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features, with a focus on patient, procedural, and device features that have demonstrated a relevant impact on the risk of poor hemodynamic valve performance and adverse clinical events.

Managing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presents challenges given that there are several potential antithrombotic therapy (ATT) strategies.We examined ATT patterns, agreement between subjective physician ratings and validated risk scores, physician-patient perceptions influencing ATT and 1-year outcomes.The AVIATOR 2 prospective registry enrolled 514 non-valvular AF-PCI patients from 11 sites. Treating physicians selected ATT and completed smartphone surveys rating stroke and bleeding risks, compared against CHAThe mean patient age was 73.2±9.0 years, including 25.8% females. Triple therapy (TT: 1 anticoagulant and 2 antiplatelet agents) was prescribed in 66.5%, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in 20.7% and dual therapy (1 anticoagulant+1 antiplatelet agent) in 12.8% of patients. Physician ratings and validated risk scores showed poor agreement (stroke: kappa=0.03; bleeding: kappa=0.07). Physicians rated bleeding-related safety (93.8%) as the main factor affecting ATT choice. Patients worried about stroke over bleeding (50.6% vs 14.8%). No group differences by ATT strategy were observed in 1-year MACCE (TT 14.1% vs dual therapy 12.7% vs DAPT 18.5%; p=0.25), or actionable bleeding (14.7% vs 7.9% vs 15.1%, respectively; p=0.89).The AVIATOR 2 study is the first digital health study examining physician-patient perspectives on ATT choices after AF-PCI. TT was the most common strategy without differences in 1-year outcomes in ATT strategy. Physicians rated safety first when prescribing ATT; patients feared stroke over bleeding.gov: NCT02362659.

Purpose of Review Artificial intelligence (AI) applications in (interventional) cardiology continue to emerge. This review summarizes the current state and future perspectives of AI for automated imaging analysis in invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Recent Findings Recently, 12 studies on AI for automated imaging analysis In ICA have been published. In these studies, machine learning (ML) models have been developed for frame selection, segmentation, lesion assessment, and functional assessment of coronary flow. These ML models have been developed on monocenter datasets (in range 31–14,509 patients) and showed moderate to good performance. However, only three ML models were externally validated. Summary Given the current pace of AI developments for the analysis of ICA, less-invasive, objective, and automated diagnosis of CAD can be expected in the near future. Further research on this technology in the catheterization laboratory may assist and improve treatment allocation, risk stratification, and cath lab logistics by integrating ICA analysis with other clinical characteristics.

Aims We aimed to evaluate the treatment effects of ticagrelor monotherapy in the very high risk cohort of patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and aspirin post-PCI, event-free patients were randomized to either aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor for 12 months. Those with available information on DM and CKD status were included in this subanalysis and were stratified by the presence or absence of either condition: 3391 (54.1%) had neither DM nor CKD (DM−/CKD−), 1822 (29.0%) had DM only (DM+/CKD−), 561 (8.9%) had CKD only (DM−/CKD+), and 8.0% had both DM and CKD (DM+/CKD+). The incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding did not differ according to DM/CKD status (P-trend = 0.13), but there was a significant increase in BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (P-trend < 0.001) as well as the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (P-trend < 0.001). Ticagrelor plus placebo reduced bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin across all four groups, including DM+/CKD+ patients with respect to BARC 2–5 [4.5% vs. 8.7%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24–1.01] as well as BARC 3–5 (0.8% vs. 5.3%; HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.53) bleeding, with no evidence of heterogeneity. The risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar between treatment arms across all groups. Conclusion Irrespective of the presence of DM, CKD, and their combination, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the risk of bleeding without a significant increase in ischaemic events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin.

Aims Patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) represent a prevalent subgroup among those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early aspirin discontinuation after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has emerged as a bleeding avoidance strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT in a contemporary HBR population. Methods and results This prespecified analysis of the TWILIGHT trial evaluated the treatment effects of early aspirin withdrawal followed by ticagrelor monotherapy in HBR patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free patients were randomized to 12 months of aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor. A total of 1064 (17.2%) met the Academic Research Consortium definition for HBR. Ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in HBR (6.3% vs. 11.4%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35–0.82) and non-HBR patients (3.5% vs. 5.9%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46–0.77) with similar relative (P interaction = 0.67) but a trend towards greater absolute risk reduction in the former [−5.1% vs. −2.3%; difference in absolute risk differences (ARDs) −2.8%, 95% CI −6.4% to 0.8%, P = 0.130]. A similar pattern was observed for more severe BARC 3 or 5 bleeding with a larger absolute risk reduction in HBR patients (−3.5% vs. −0.5%; difference in ARDs −3.0%, 95% CI −5.2% to −0.8%, P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between treatment arms, irrespective of HBR status. Conclusions Among HBR patients undergoing PCI who completed 3-month DAPT without experiencing major adverse events, aspirin discontinuation followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced bleeding without increasing ischaemic events, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. The absolute risk reduction in major bleeding was larger in HBR than non-HBR patients.

Background Potent P2Y12 inhibitors are recommended on top of aspirin in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, guideline recommendations suggest that the optimal antithrombotic strategy should be tailored based on patients thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk profile. Purpose It is poorly investigated if the benefits derived from potent P2Y12 inhibition in patients with ACS depend on the individual thrombotic risk profile. Our aim was to evaluate if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are similar in case of different thrombotic risk profiles. Methods PROMETHEUS was a multicenter observational study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI. According to the 2020 ESC guidelines for non-ST elevation-ACS, patients are defined at high thrombotic risk if presenting with a clinical (diabetes mellitus requiring medication, history of recurrent myocardial infarction [MI], multivessel coronary artery disease [CAD], polyvascular [coronary and peripheral] disease, premature (60 mm, complex revascularization [left main PCI, bifurcation or chronic total occlusion]) risk features. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of death, MI, stroke or unplanned revascularization. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using propensity-stratified analysis to assess the effect of prasugrel vs. clopidogrel and with multivariable Cox regression to evaluate the impact of thrombotic risk. Results Among 16065 patients, 4293 were defined at high thrombotic risk and 11772 at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. Patients treated with prasugrel had less comorbidities and risk factors than those treated with clopidogrel, both in the high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk strata. Patients at high thrombotic risk had higher rates of both ischemic and bleeding events at 90 days and at 1 year. Patients treated with prasugrel had a lower adjusted risk of MACE at 1 year (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77–0.96), with no significant interaction between effect estimates and thrombotic risk. However, after stratifying the study population by the number of risk factors, there was a significant interaction for a greater reduction in MACE with prasugrel in patients with ≤1 thrombotic risk factor. Conversely, there were no differences in major bleeding among patients treated with prasugrel and clopidogrel. Conclusions Patients with ACS at high thrombotic risk who undergo PCI are at increased risk of adverse events. Prasugrel, although mainly reserved to patients with lower burden of comorbidities, reduced the risk of ischemic events both in patients at high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk as compared with clopidogrel. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Daiichi Sankyo and Eli Lilly and Company Clinical outcomes at 1 year.Impact of number of risk factors

Background: Bleeding events after percutaneous coronary intervention are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Female patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are often older and present with a higher burden of comorbidities, which in turn increases their risk of adverse events, including bleeding complications. The Academic Research Consortium (ARC) have proposed a list of clinical criteria to define high bleeding risk (HBR). Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence and predictive value of the ARC-HBR criteria according to sex in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: All consecutive patients receiving coronary stenting between 2014 and 2017 at a tertiary-care center were defined as HBR if they fulfilled at least 1 major or 2 minor ARC-HBR criteria. The primary bleeding end point was the composite of periprocedural in-hospital or postdischarge bleeding up to 1 year. Individual components of the primary bleeding end point, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction were also evaluated. Results: Of the total 9623 patients, 6979 (72.5%) were male and 2644 (27.5%) female. The prevalence of HBR was significantly higher in females compared with males (56.5% versus 39.9%, P P P interaction =0.344). The ARC-HBR criteria associated with the highest bleeding risk at 1 year were severe/end-stage chronic kidney disease and thrombocytopenia in females, and moderate/severe anemia in males. Conclusions: In a real-world cohort of percutaneous coronary intervention patients, females were more often at HBR than males. The prognostic value of the ARC-HBR definition was consistent between female and male patients, despite sex-related differences in the prevalence and bleeding risk associated with individual ARC-HBR criteria.

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and prognostic impact of high bleeding risk (HBR), as determined by the Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria, in real-world patients undergoing left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).LM PCI is often reserved for patients at increased risk for periprocedural adverse events. Patients at HBR represent a relevant percentage of this cohort, but their outcomes after LM PCI are still poorly investigated.All patients undergoing LM PCI between 2014 and 2017 at a tertiary care center were prospectively enrolled. Patients were defined as having HBR if they met at least 1 major or 2 minor Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 12 months.Among 619 enrolled patients, 55.3% were at HBR. The rate of the primary endpoint was 4-fold higher in patients at HBR compared with those without HBR (20.5% vs 4.9%; HR: 4.43; 95% CI: 2.31-8.48), driven by an increased risk for all-cause death (HR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.88-8.02) and MI (HR: 6.18; 95% CI: 1.83-20.9). Rates of target vessel or lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were comparable in the 2 groups. Bleeding occurred more frequently in patients at HBR (HR: 3.77; 95% CI: 1.83-7.76). Consistent findings were observed after Cox multivariable regression adjustment.Among patients undergoing LM PCI, those with HBR are at increased risk for all-cause death, MI, and bleeding. Conversely, rates of repeat revascularization and stent thrombosis were comparable, suggesting frailty and comorbidities as primary causes of worse outcomes in patients at HBR.

Objectives: To describe the incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of permanent pacemaker insertion (PPI) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in women. Background: Data on pacemaker insertion complicating TAVR in women are scarce. Methods: The Women's International Transcatheter Aortic Valve implantation (WIN-TAVI) is a prospective registry evaluating the safety and efficacy of TAVR in women. We included patients without preprocedural pacemakers and divided them into two groups: (1) PPI and (2) no-PPI. We identified PPI predictors using logistic regression and studied its clinical impact on the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 efficacy and safety endpoints. Results: Out of 1019 patients, 922 were included in the analysis. Post-TAVR PPI occurred in 132 (14.3%) patients. Clinical and procedural characteristics were similar in both groups. Pre-existing right bundle branch block (RBBB) was associated with a high risk of post-TAVR PPI (OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.85–7.06, p < 0.001), while implantation of balloon-expandable prosthesis was associated with a lower risk (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.74, p < 0.001). Post-TAVR PPI prolonged in-hospital stay by a median of 2 days (11 [9–16] days in PPI vs. 9 [7–14] days in no-PPI, p = 0.005), yet risks of VARC-2 efficacy and safety endpoints at 1 year were similar in both groups (adjHR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60–1.52, p = 0.84 and adjHR 1.22, 95% CI 0.83–1.79, p = 0.31, respectively). Conclusion: Pacemaker implantation following TAVR is frequent among women and is associated with pre-existing RBBB and valve type. PPI prolongs hospital stay, albeit without any significant impact on 1-year outcomes.

Introduction: Recent reports on COVID-19 patients have shown that elevated troponin (Tn) levels on hospital admission are associated with adverse outcomes. However, no data exists on the predictive role of Tn kinetics parameters in COVID-19 patients. Aim: To analyze the incidence, clinical outcomes and predictors of Tn kinetics parameter, including rise/fall pattern and peak values, in a large cohort of COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Methods: All consecutive patients admitted to an urban tertiary-care health system between February and June 2020 with COVID-19 were included. Patients were grouped according to presence of myocardial injury defined as a high-sensitivity TnI level ≥0.1 ng/ml. A TnI level between 0.4-0.99 was defined as low positive range Tn elevation. Results: We included 5862 COVID-19 patients, 1558 (27%) of whom experienced myocardial injury. Advance age, male sex and higher comorbidity burden, including COPD, hypertension, CAD, atrial fibrillation, HF, CKD, and diabetes were more common in patients with myocardial injury. A total of 828/1558 (53.2%) of patients with myocardial injury died as compared to 634/4304 (14.7%) of those without (OR 6.57, 95% CI 5.76-7.48; p Conclusions: Myocardial injury is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients,with a stepwise increase in the risk of mortality reflecting increasing extent of myocardial damage.

Introduction: Despite the increasing number of complex percutaneous coronary interventions (CPCI), data regarding outcomes following CPCI in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are scarce. Hypothesis: Compared to the general population, diabetic patients undergoing CPCI have worse prognosis. Methods: We analyzed data of patients who underwent PCI in a tertiary-care center between 2009 and 2017. Patients were divided into 2 groups (CPCI and non-CPCI) stratified by presence of DM. CPCI was defined as having ≥1 of the following: stent length >60 mm, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions, ≥3 target vessels, bifurcation with ≥2 stents, or chronic total occlusion. The main outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. Results: Out of 20,412 patients included, 5,038 (24.7%) underwent CPCI. Patients with DM constituted 46.5% (n=9,494) of the overall cohort and 44.5% (n=2,240) of CPCI group. Among patients undergoing CPCI, diabetics were younger, more likely to be female, and had more cardiovascular risk factors (kidney disease, dyslipidemia, and hypertension) than non-diabetics. In addition, diabetic patients had more advanced coronary disease (multivessel disease, high syntax score, and longer lesion length). At 1 year, diabetic patients had higher risk of MACE than non-diabetic, regardless of PCI complexity ( Figure 1 ). Nonetheless, there was a significant interaction between CPCI and diabetes in terms of mortality at 1 year (p-interaction=0.009). In contrast, compared to non-diabetics, a higher risk of TVR ( adj HR 1.49, 95% CI [1.24 - 1.78], p adj HR 1.45, 95% CI [1.05 - 1.98], p=0.02) was observed in diabetics undergoing non-CPCI but not CPCI. Conclusion: Diabetic patients are at higher risk of MACE than the general population regardless of PCI complexity. Yet, 1-year mortality is substantially higher in diabetics undergoing CPCI than non-CPCI.

Introduction: Prognosis in high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is largely dependent on risk of ischemic/bleeding events. Inflammation is known to increase the ischemic risk following PCI in the general population, yet its impact on HBR patients remains unknown. Hypothesis: We assessed the hypothesis that inflammation, as reflected by elevated high-sensitivity C - reactive protein (hsCRP), increases the risk of ischemic and bleeding events in HBR patients undergoing PCI. Methods: We included patients who underwent PCI at a tertiary care center between 2014 and 2017. Patients were classified as HBR if they met ≥1 major or ≥2 minor criteria according to the Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-HBR consensus. Patients were then stratified into high (≥3 mg/l) and low (10 mg/l were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (composite of all-cause death, MI, and target vessel revascularization) and bleeding events. Results: Out of 7,186 patients included, 3,403 (42.3%) fulfilled the ARC-HBR definition of whom 1,046 (34.4%) had high hsCRP. These patients were frequently female, younger, and had more cardiovascular risk factors (diabetes, kidney disease, and peripheral artery disease) yet similar angiographic features (multivessel disease, syntax score, and lesion length) than those with low hsCRP. Although risk of MACE at 1 year was similar in HBR patients with either high or low hsCRP, mortality risk was significantly higher in the former group ( Figure 1 ). In addition, HBR patients with high hsCRP were more likely to have periprocedural bleeding (OR 1.72, 95% CI [1.14-2.58], p=0.01) but similar risk of 1-year major bleeding as HBR patients with low hsCRP ( Figure 1 ). Conclusion: In conclusion, inflammation is associated with periprocedural bleeding and 1-year mortality in HBR patients undergoing PCI.

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, irrespective of race/ethnicity. Previous studies reported that minority patients with ACS have distinct clinical, genetic and socioeconomic backgrounds that may affect clinical outcomes. Hypothesis: To investigate post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes according to race/ethnicity in a contemporary ACS population. Methods: We included consecutive patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation for STEMI, non-STEMI or unstable angina (UA) between 2012-2017. The study population was stratified into Caucasian, African American, Hispanic and Asian. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) defined as a composite of death, spontaneous myocardial infarction or stroke at 1 year. Results: Of the 6800 patients included, 3377 (49.7%) were Caucasian, 1408 (20.7%) Hispanic, 1156 (17.0%) Asian and 859 (12.6%) African American. Caucasians were the oldest, Hispanics and Asians had the highest prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) and African Americans had more insulin dependent DM and chronic kidney disease. Hispanics and African Americans had the highest STEMI rate, while Asians were more likely to present with UA, have private insurance and be discharged on aspirin and clopidogrel. Compared to Caucasians, Asians had a lower rate of MACCE at 1 year (3.9% vs. 7.1%; p Conclusions: Among patients undergoing PCI for ACS, Asian race is associated with favorable cardiovascular outcomes compared to Caucasian. No significant differences were observed for Hispanics and African Americans.

Introduction: Perioperative cardiovascular events are an important cause of morbidity and mortality associated with non-cardiac surgery (NCS), especially in patients with recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who require dual antiplatelet therapy. Objective: To illustrate the types and timing of different noncardiac surgeries occurring within 1 year of PCI, and to evaluate the risk of thrombotic and bleeding events according to perioperative antiplatelet management. Methods: All patients undergoing NCS within 1 year of PCI at a tertiary-care center between 2011 and 2018 were included. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE; composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or target vessel revascularization). The key secondary outcome was major bleeding, defined as ≥2 units of blood transfusion. All outcomes were evaluated at 30 days after NCS. Results: A total of 1092 NCS (corresponding to 747 patients) were included and classified by surgical risk (low: 50.9%, intermediate: 38.4%, high: 10.7%) and priority (elective: 88.5%, urgent/emergent: 11.5%). High-risk and urgent/emergent surgeries tended to occur earlier post-PCI compared to low-risk and elective ones ( Figure-A ). The incidence of MACE and bleeding was time-dependent, with an increased risk in surgeries occurring in the first 6 months post-PCI ( Figure-B ). Perioperative antiplatelet cessation occurred in 487 (44.6%) NCS and was more likely for intermediate-risk procedures and after 6 months of PCI. There was no significant association between antiplatelet cessation and cardiac events. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing NCS within 1 year of PCI, the perioperative risk of MACE is inversely related to time from PCI. Preoperative interruption of antiplatelet therapy was observed in less than half of all cases and was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac events.

Introduction Current clinical guidelines recommend prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, an extended DAPT duration in high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients amplifies the risk of post procedural complications. Hence, clinicians often face the dilemma of prolonging DAPT duration to prevent recurrent ischaemic events at the expense of increasing the incidence of bleeding in high-risk patients. The actual incidence of ischaemic and bleeding events in this particular population is not well elucidated. Purpose To evaluate one-year ischemic and bleeding outcomes following PCI for ACS in a real-world HBR population as defined by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) consensus document. Methods We included all patients who presented with ACS to a high-volume single PCI centre from 2012 to 2017 and underwent PCI with 2nd generation drug-eluting stent implantation. Patients were classified as HBR if they met ≥1 major or ≥2 minor criteria according to the recent ARC-HBR consensus. The outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major bleeding events, including both peri-procedural and post-discharge bleeding. All outcomes were assessed at 1-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for time-to-event analyses. Results Out of 6,097 ACS patients included in this analysis, 2,717 (44.6%) fulfilled the ARC-HBR definition. Compared to non-HBR group, HBR patients were more frequently female, older, more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia) and complex coronary artery disease (e.g., multi-vessel disease, bifurcation lesions, and calcification). The 1-year incidence of MACE was significantly higher in HBR patients (16.3% vs. 8.1%, HR 2.16, 95% CI [1.81–2.59], p Conclusions HBR patients undergoing PCI for ACS are not only subject to bleeding complications but are also at an increased risk for ischemic events and all-cause mortality. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

A P2Y12 inhibitor-based monotherapy after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy is emerging as a plausible strategy to decrease bleeding events in high-risk patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention (TWILIGHT), a randomized double-blind trial, tested this approach by dropping aspirin at 3 months and continuing with ticagrelor monotherapy for an additional 12 months. The study enrolled 9,006 patients, of whom 7,119 who tolerated 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy were randomized after 3 months into two arms: ticagrelor plus placebo and ticagrelor plus aspirin. The primary endpoint of interest, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, occurred less frequently in the experimental arm (HR 0.56; 95% CI [0.45–0.68]; p