Search

Aims: Women have historically been disadvantaged in terms of care and outcomes for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). We describe patterns of presentation, care, and outcomes for NSTEMI by sex in a contemporary and geographically diverse cohort., Methods and Results: Prospective cohort study including 2947 patients (907 women, 2040 men) with Type I NSTEMI from 287 centres in 59 countries, stratified by sex. Quality of care was evaluated based on 12 guideline-recommended care interventions. The all-or-none scoring composite performance measure was used to define receipt of optimal care. Outcomes included acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, repeat myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, BARC Type ≥3 bleeding, or death in-hospital, as well as 30-day mortality. Women admitted with NSTEMI were older, more comorbid, and more frequently categorized as at higher ischaemic (GRACE >140, 54.0% vs. 41.7%, P < 0.001) and bleeding (CRUSADE >40, 51.7% vs. 17.6%, P < 0.001) risk than men. Women less frequently received invasive coronary angiography (ICA; 83.0% vs. 89.5%, P < 0.001), smoking cessation advice (46.4% vs. 69.5%, P < 0.001), and P2Y12 inhibitor prescription at discharge (81.9% vs. 90.0%, P < 0.001). Non-receipt of ICA was more often due to frailty for women than men (16.7% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.010). At ICA, more women than men had non-obstructive coronary artery disease or angiographically normal arteries (15.8% vs. 6.3%, P < 0.001). Rates of in-hospital adverse outcomes and 30-day mortality were low and did not differ by sex., Conclusion: In contemporary practice, women presenting with NSTEMI, compared with men, less frequently receive antiplatelet prescription, smoking cessation advice, or are considered eligible for ICA., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: H.B., K.H., P.L., R.N., and V.K. report no conflict of interest. C.P.G. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehrinher-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Vifor, Pharma, Menarini, Wondr Medical, Raisio Group, and Oxford University Press. He has received educational and research grants from BMS, Abbott Inc., the British Heart Foundation, National Institute of Health Research, Horizon 2020, and from the European Society of Cardiology, outside the submitted work. S.B. reports personal fees from Boston Scientific, Insight, Lifetech, iVascular, and Abbott Vascular. D.M. reports personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biosensors and Terumo. He has participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or Advisory Boards for Abbott and Boston Scientific. A.B. reports personal and institutional investigator fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Novartis, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer. He reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Novartis, and Bayer. He has participated in Data Safety Monitoring Boards or Advisory Boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, and Bayer. He has received support for attending meetings by Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, and Bayer. S.L. reports personal fees from ICON, Chiesi, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Novo Nordisk. M.L. reports speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Boehrinher-Ingelheim, Novartis and sanofi, and manuscript writing fees from Edwards Lifesciences. She has also participated as an advisory board member for sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Boehrinher-Ingelheim. Y.A. reports a research grant from the Dutch Heart Foundation. Signed COIs available for all authors., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The majority of NSTEMI burden resides outside high-income countries (HICs). We describe presentation, care, and outcomes of NSTEMI by country income classification., Methods and Results: Prospective cohort study including 2947 patients with NSTEMI from 287 centres in 59 countries, stratified by World Bank country income classification. Quality of care was evaluated based on 12 guideline-recommended care interventions. The all-or-none scoring composite performance measure was used to define receipt of optimal care. Outcomes included in-hospital acute heart failure, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, and death, and 30-day mortality. Patients admitted with NSTEMI in low to lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs), compared with patients in HICs, were younger, more commonly diabetic, and current smokers, but with a lower burden of other comorbidities, and 76.7% met very high risk criteria for an immediate invasive strategy. Invasive coronary angiography use increased with ascending income classification (LLMICs, 79.2%; upper middle income countries [UMICs], 83.7%; HICs, 91.0%), but overall care quality did not (≥80% of eligible interventions achieved: LLMICS, 64.8%; UMICs 69.6%; HICs 55.1%). Rates of acute heart failure (LLMICS, 21.3%; UMICs, 12.1%; HICs, 6.8%; P < 0.001), stroke/transient ischaemic attack (LLMICS: 2.5%; UMICs: 1.5%; HICs: 0.9%; P = 0.04), in-hospital mortality (LLMICS, 3.6%; UMICs: 2.8%; HICs: 1.0%; P < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (LLMICs, 4.9%; UMICs, 3.9%; HICs, 1.5%; P < 0.001) exhibited an inverse economic gradient., Conclusion: Patients with NSTEMI in LLMICs present with fewer comorbidities but a more advanced stage of acute disease, and have worse outcomes compared with HICs. A cardiovascular health narrative is needed to address this inequity across economic boundaries., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Despite the increasing proportion of female medical and nursing students, there is still a significant under-representation of women working as healthcare providers in interventional cardiology, with very few of them reaching senior leadership, academic positions, or acting principal investigators, as well as actively involved in company advisory boards. In this position paper, we will describe the current status of women working in interventional cardiology across Europe. We will also provide an overview of the most relevant determinants of the under-representation of women at each stage of the interventional cardiology career path and offer practical suggestions for overcoming these challenges., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Dr Buchanan declares travel support from Menarini. Dr Paradies declares consulting, advisory board and speaker fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific and research grant to the institution from Abbott. Dr Karam declares consulting, speaker and advisoryboard fees from Abbott, Medtronic and Edwards. Dr Holmvang declares speaker fees from Bayer. Dr Morice declares to be CEO andshare holder of CERC, a CRO not involved in the publication, and to be minor shareholder of ELECRODUCER. Dr Manzo-Silberman declares consulting and speaker fees for Bayer, Organon, Exeltis, Biotronik, Organon and BMS. Dr Petronio declares consulting and speaker fees from Boston and Abbott and from Medtronic to the Institution. Dr Mauri declares to be share holder of CERC, a CRO notinvolved in the publication. Dr Mehilli declares speaker fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Biotronik, Astra Zeneca, BMS and SIS Medical. Dr Barbato declares speaker's fees and travel grants from the following companies: BSCI, Abbott, Insight Lifetech, MicroPort. Dr Chieffo declares speaker/consulting fees from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Biosensor, Menarini, Medtronic and Shock Wave Medical. The other authors declare no conflict of interest related to this article., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: To appraise all available antithrombotic treatments within or after 12 months following coronary revascularization and/or acute coronary syndrome in two network meta-analyses., Methods and Results: Forty-three (N = 189 261 patients) trials within 12 months and 19 (N = 139 086 patients) trials beyond 12 months were included for efficacy/safety endpoints appraisal. Within 12 months, ticagrelor 90 mg bis in die (b.i.d.) [hazard ratio (HR), 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.88], aspirin and ticagrelor 90 mg (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95), or aspirin, clopidogrel and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86) were the only treatments associated with lower cardiovascular mortality, compared with aspirin and clopidogrel, without or with greater bleeding risk for the first and the other treatment options, respectively. Beyond 12 months, no strategy lowered mortality; compared with aspirin; the greatest reductions of myocardial infarction (MI) were found with aspirin and clopidogrel (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85) or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (HR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.61-0.95), especially ticagrelor 90 mg (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.92), and of stroke with VKA (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.76) or aspirin and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.76). All treatments increased bleeding except P2Y12 monotherapy, compared with aspirin., Conclusion: Within 12 months, ticagrelor 90 mg monotherapy was the only treatment associated with lower mortality, without bleeding risk trade-off compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Beyond 12 months, P2Y12 monotherapy, especially ticagrelor 90 mg, was associated with lower MI without bleeding trade-off; aspirin and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg most effectively reduced stroke, with a more acceptable bleeding risk than VKA, compared with aspirin.Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifiers: CRD42021243985 and CRD42021252398., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

The proposed 2020 Core Curriculum for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions aims to provide an updated European consensus that defines the level of experience and knowledge in the field of percutaneous cardiovascular intervention (PCI). It promotes homogenous education and training programmes among countries, and is the cornerstone of the new EAPCI certification, designed to support the recognition of competencies at the European level and the free movement of certified specialists in the European Community. It is based on a thorough review of the ESC guidelines and of the EAPCI textbook on percutaneous interventional cardiovascular medicine. The structure of the current core curriculum evolved from previous EAPCI core curricula and from the "2013 core curriculum of the general cardiologist" to follow the current ESC recommendations for core curricula. In most subject areas, there was a wide - if not unanimous - consensus among the task force members on the training required for the interventional cardiologist of the future. The document recommends that acquisition of competence in interventional cardiology requires at least two years of postgraduate training, in addition to four years devoted to cardiology. The first part of the curriculum covers general aspects of training and is followed by a comprehensive description of the specific components in 54 chapters. Each of the chapters includes statements of the objectives, and is further subdivided into the required knowledge, skills, behaviours, and attitudes.

This consensus document, a summary of the views of an expert panel organized by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), appraises the importance of ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA). Angina pectoris affects approximately 112 million people globally. Up to 70% of patients undergoing invasive angiography do not have obstructive coronary artery disease, more common in women than in men, and a large proportion have INOCA as a cause of their symptoms. INOCA patients present with a wide spectrum of symptoms and signs that are often misdiagnosed as non-cardiac leading to under-diagnosis/investigation and under-treatment. INOCA can result from heterogeneous mechanism including coronary vasospasm and microvascular dysfunction and is not a benign condition. Compared to asymptomatic individuals, INOCA is associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular events, repeated hospital admissions, as well as impaired quality of life and associated increased health care costs. This consensus document provides a definition of INOCA and guidance to the community on the diagnostic approach and management of INOCA based on existing evidence from research and best available clinical practice; noting gaps in knowledge and potential areas for further investigation.

This consensus document, a summary of the views of an expert panel organized by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), appraises the importance of ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA). Angina pectoris affects approximately 112 million people globally. Up to 70% of patients undergoing invasive angiography do not have obstructive coronary artery disease, more common in women than in men, and a large proportion have INOCA as a cause of their symptoms. INOCA patients present with a wide spectrum of symptoms and signs that are often misdiagnosed as non-cardiac leading to under-diagnosis/investigation and under-treatment. INOCA can result from heterogeneous mechanism including coronary vasospasm and microvascular dysfunction and is not a benign condition. Compared to asymptomatic individuals, INOCA is associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular events, repeated hospital admissions, as well as impaired quality of life and associated increased health care costs. This consensus document provides a definition of INOCA and guidance to the community on the diagnostic approach and management of INOCA based on existing evidence from research and best available clinical practice; noting gaps in knowledge and potential areas for further investigation., (The article has been co-published with permission in the European Heart Journal and EuroIntervention. All rights reserved. © 2020 the Author(s). These articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.)

Despite major therapeutic advances over the last decades, complex supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), particularly in the emergency setting or during revascularization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), remain an important clinical problem. Although the incidence of VAs has declined in the hospital phase of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), mainly due to prompt revascularization and optimal medical therapy, still up to 6% patients with ACS develop ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation within the first hours of ACS symptoms. Despite sustained VAs being perceived predictors of worse in-hospital outcomes, specific associations between the type of VAs, arrhythmia timing, applied treatment strategies and long-term prognosis in AMI are vague. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common supraventricular tachyarrhythmia that may be asymptomatic and/or may be associated with rapid haemodynamic deterioration requiring immediate treatment. It is estimated that over 20% AMI patients may have a history of AF, whereas the new-onset arrhythmia may occur in 5% patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction. Importantly, patients who were treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for AMI and developed AF have higher rates of adverse events and mortality compared with subjects free of arrhythmia. The scope of this position document is to cover the clinical implications and pharmacological/non-pharmacological management of arrhythmias in emergency presentations and during revascularization. Current evidence for clinical relevance of specific types of VAs complicating AMI in relation to arrhythmia timing has been discussed., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Very few women become interventional cardiologists, although a substantial proportion of cardiologists and the majority of medical students are women. In accordance with the EAPCI Women Committee mission of attaining gender equality at the professional level, a worldwide survey was recently conducted aiming to understand better the motivations and the barriers for women in selecting interventional cardiology (IC) as a career path., Methods and Results: A total of 1,787 individuals (60.7% women) responded to the survey. Women compared to men were less frequently married (women vs. men, 57.0% vs. 79.8%, p<0.001) and more frequently childless (46.6% vs. 20.5%, p<0.002). The most prevalent reason for choosing IC was passion (83.3% vs. 76.1%, p=0.12), while those for not choosing were, sequentially, lack of opportunity (29.0% vs. 45.7%), radiation concerns (19.9% vs. 11.6%) and preference (16.2% vs. 29.5%), p<0.001. According to 652 men replying to why, in their opinion, women do not choose IC, on-calls and long working hours were the most frequent reasons (35.3%)., Conclusions: Several barriers preclude women from choosing IC, including lack of opportunity, concerns regarding radiation exposure and the prejudices of their male colleagues. This highlights the need to develop new strategies for future training, education, and support of women in order to choose IC.

Concerns regarding radiation exposure and its effects during pregnancy are often quoted as an important barrier preventing many women from pursuing a career in Interventional Cardiology. Finding the true risk of radiation exposure from performing cardiac catheterisation procedures can be challenging and guidelines for pregnancy exposure have been inadequate. The Women in Innovations group of Cardiologists with endorsement of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions aim to provide guidance in this publication by describing the risk of radiation exposure to pregnant physicians and cardiac catheterisation personnel, to educate on appropriate radiation monitoring and to encourage mechanisms to reduce radiation exposure. Current data do not suggest a significant increased risk to the foetus of pregnant women in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory and thus do not justify precluding pregnant physicians from performing procedures in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. However, radiation exposure amongst pregnant physicians should be properly monitored and adequate radiation safety measures are still warranted., (2010. Published by Elsevier Inc on behalf of Australasian Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons and the Cardiac)