Search

Background Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with acetylsalicylic acid and oral P2Y12 inhibitor (P2Y12-I) represents the standard of care for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Cangrelor, the first intravenous P2Y12-I, is deemed to overcome the drawbacks of the oral administration; nevertheless real world data on this new drug are scanty. We sought to investigate routine clinical use of cangrelor in four interventional centers of Italy. Methods We enrolled 241 consecutive patients (196 ACS, 45 CCS) treated with cangrelor during PCI. Drug administration modalities and in-hospital clinical outcomes were evaluated. A subanalysis in patients selected on the basis of the CHAMPION Phoenix trial inclusion/exclusion criteria (CHAMPION-like subpopulation) was also performed. Results Cangrelor was mainly utilized in ACS patients, who presented poorer clinical conditions and higher bleeding risk. Cangrelor was given only in P2Y12-I naive patients; switch to clopidogrel was always done at the end of the infusion, while ticagrelor or prasugrel were prevalently given 30 minutes before. In-hospital mortality was 10.0% and GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding was 2.5%. Bleeding data showed nevertheless to be in line with the CHAMPION Phoenix results in the "CHAMPION-like" subpopulation. Conclusions Cangrelor was predominantly used in ACS with modalities substantially in accord with the label indications. Poor clinical outcomes are due to the prevalent utilization in highly challenging clinical settings, nevertheless the rate of bleeding and stent thrombosis are in line with the randomized trials if analyzed in a subpopulation of comparable risk profile.

Background Cardiac involvement significantly contributes to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)mortality.12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) represents a fast, cheap, and easy to perform exam with the adjunctive advantage of the remote reporting possibility. In this study, we sought to investigate if electrocardiographic parameters are able to identify patients, deemed at low-risk at admission,who will face in-hospital unfavourable course. Methods From March 1, 2020 through March 30, 2021, 384 consecutive patients with confirmed low-risk COVID-19 were hospitalized at the AziendaOspedalieroUniversitariaPoliclinico di Bari (Italy). Criteria for low-risk were: admission to the division of Pneumology or Infectious Diseases, no need for immediate (within 24 hours from admission) transfer to Intensive Care Unit or for respiratory support with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or for circulation support (either mechanical or pharmacological). Admission ECGs were reviewed and interpreted by two expert cardiologists. The primary outcomes were in-hospital death and the composite outcome of in-hospitaldeath and IMV. Results In low-risk COVID-19 patients, atrial fibrillation (AF), poor R wave progression (PRWP), tachycardia, and right bundle branch block (RBBB) resulted as statistically significant and independent predictors of in-hospital all-cause mortality; AF, PRWP, Tachycardia, RBBB, and corrected QT interval showed to be statistically significant and independent risk factors for the occurrence of the composite endpoint of death and IMV. Conclusions Our study demonstrated for the first time that RBBB and PRWP, assessed upon admission with ECG, are associated with unfavourable clinical course in a baseline low-risk population hospitalized for COVID-19.

Background The optional periprocedural antithrombotic management for carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still debated. Methods We aimed to compare the procedural and 1-month outlook of patients undergoing CAS with tirofiban as parenteral antiplatelet therapy. We retrospectively compared patients receiving tirofiban during CAS versus those undergoing CAS without tirofiban, using propensity score matching. Ancillary antithrombotic therapy included in all patients aspirin, clopidogrel, and unfractioned heparin. The primary outcome was the change in serum troponin from baseline to postprocedural peak levels. A total of 30 patients undergoing CAS were included, 15 receiving tirofiban on top of heparin and dual oral antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and 15 receiving only heparin and DAPT. Bail-out use of tirofiban was an exclusion criterion. Results Baseline troponin was 3.00 (0.06; 5.20) ng/mL in the tirofiban group vs. 4.6 (0.02; 13.10) ng/mL in the no-tirofiban group (P = 0.229), and postprocedural peak 3.5 (0.06; 5.50) ng/mL vs. 6.30 (0.09; 28.40) ng/mL (P = 0.191). Peak-baseline difference in troponin was lower in the tirofiban group than in the no-tirofiban group: 0.3 (0.00; 1.7) ng/mL vs. 1.3 (0.01; 10.00) ng/mL (P = 0.044); the relative peak-baseline change in troponin was analogously different: 24.3% (0%; 44.7%) vs. 50% (21.3%; 80.0%) (P = 0.039). No case of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack occurred during in-hospital stay or at 1-month follow-up. Conclusions Tirofiban during CAS might provide periprocedural myocardial protection and reduce myocardial injury as determined by serial troponin measurements.