Search

Beyond its role in hemostasis, von Willebrand factor (VWF) is an emerging mediator of vascular inflammation. Recent studies highlight the involvement of VWF and its regulator, ADAMTS13, in mechanisms that underlie vascular inflammation and immunothrombosis, like leukocyte rolling, adhesion, and extravasation; vascular permeability; ischemia/reperfusion injury; complements activation; and NETosis. The VWF/ADAMTS13 axis is implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, promoting plaque formation and inflammation through macrophage and neutrophil recruitment in inflamed lesions. Moreover, VWF and ADAMTS13 have been recently proposed as prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular, metabolic, and inflammatory diseases, such as diabetes, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis. All these features make VWF an attractive therapeutic target in thromboinflammation. Several lines of research have recently investigated “tailor-made” inhibitors of VWF. Results from animal models and clinical studies support the potent anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effect of VWF antagonism, providing reassuring data on its safety profile. This review describes the role of VWF in vascular inflammation “from bench to bedside” and provides an updated overview of the drugs that can directly interfere with the VWF/ADAMTS13 axis.

Objectives to compare the 1-year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS), everolimus-eluting stent (EES), and drug-eluting balloon (DEB) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) treatment. Background BVS has been proposed as alternative for ISR treatment. To date a direct comparison between BVS and DES or DEB for ISR treatment is lacking. Methods We retrospectively analyzed all ISR lesions treated with BVS, DEB, and EES from January 2012 to December 2014. A total of 548 lesions (498 patients) were included. By applying two propensity-score matching, 93 lesions treated with BVS were compared with 93 lesions treated with DEB, and 100 lesions treated with BVS were compared to 100 lesions treated with EES. Results At 1-year follow-up the incidence of device-oriented cardiovascular events (DOCE) and its components did not significantly differ between BVS and DEB (DOCE: 10.9 vs. 11.8%, HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.33-2.52; P = 0.86; Cardiac death: 2.2 vs. 1.2%, HR, 1.74, 95% CI 0.16-18.80, P = 0.65; ID-TLR: 8.9 vs. 10.7%, HR, 0.81, 95% CI 0.27-2.48, P = 0.71; TV-MI: 3.3 vs. 1.2%, HR, 2.39, 95% CI 0.27-21.32, P = 0.43) and BVS vs. EES (DOCE: 10.1 vs. 5.2% HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 0.63-5.25; P = 0.27; Cardiac death: 3.0 vs. 1.1%; HR, 2.83, 95% CI 0.29-27.4, P = 0.37; ID-TLR: 7.2 vs. 4.2%, HR, 1.57, 95% CI 0.47-5.23, P = 0.46; TV-MI: 3.1 vs. 0%). Conclusion At 1-year follow-up the use of BVS as ISR treatment is associated with a higher, even if not significant, DOCE rate compared with EES while a similar rate compared to DEB.

von Willebrand Factor (vWF) is a well-known mediator of hemostasis and vascular inflammation. Its dynamic modulation in the bloodstream, according to hemodynamic conditions, makes it an appealing biomarker in patients with valvular heart disease (VHD). Recent studies highlight the close connection between vWF and VHD, with possible implications in the pathogenesis of VHD, promoting valve aging and calcification or favoring the development of infective endocarditis. Moreover, vWF has been recently proposed as a new diagnostic and prognostic tool in patients with valve stenosis or regurgitation, showing a strict correlation with severity of valve disease, outcome, and bleeding (Heyde syndrome). A novel role for vWF is also emerging in patients undergoing percutaneous or surgical valve repair/replacement to select and stratify patients, evaluate periprocedural bleeding risk, and detect procedural complications. We also report our single-center experience, suggesting, for the first time, possible clinical implications for vWF in percutaneous mitral valve repair (MitraClip). This review summarizes recent advances in the role of vWF in VHD with an updated overview going from bench to operating room.

Since the first cardiac catheterization in 1929, this procedure has evolved considerably. Historically performed via the transfemoral access, in the last years, the transradial access has been spreading gradually due to its many advantages. We have conducted a review of published literature concerning efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness, and we analyzed our patients’ data, including the results of the recently published Minimizing Adverse hemorrhagic events by TRansradial access site and systemic implementation of angioX (MATRIX) study. This review confirmed the superiority of the transradial access compared to the femoral access, especially regarding complications related to the access site, duration of hospitalization, and comfort for the patient. The transradial approach is an excellent option for coronary angiography, and the procedure’s risks are reduced by increased operator experience.

Background Despite recent advances, there is still an unmet need in antithrombotic therapy. New drugs have to overcome old targets, looking for new complementary strategies to counteract thrombus formation and propagation. Since its initial recognition in the 50's, von Willebrand Factor (VWF) has proved to be a contributor in clot formation. The contribution of VWF to platelet adhesion and aggregation is pivotal at high shear rates (i.e. microcirculation and critical artery stenosis), where globular-inactive-VWF elongates in a long chain-active conformation. Particularly, at sites of plaque erosion/disruption the activation of VWF may contribute critically to post-stenotic thrombus formation. In this context, VWF is a potential target of antithrombotic therapies. The plasma concentration of VWF increases in high risk population and predicts cardiovascular (CV) outcome. VWF demonstrates an emerging role in different clinical settings; for example, in valvular heart disease where it has been recently proposed as a new fluido-dynamic marker of disease severity and a predictor of successful correction. Drugs used in daily clinical practice (LMWHs, statins, N-acetylcysteine, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors) may have an unselective antagonism on the VWF-pathway. Recently, several "tailor-made" inhibitors of VWF have been investigated. In animal models and clinical studies monoclonal antibodies, aptamers and nanobodies have been demonstrated to directly interfere with the VWF pathway. These studies proved the powerful antithrombotic property and the acceptable level of safety of this strategy. Conclusion We provide an overview of the drugs that a have a role in VWF-antagonism, illustrating how they might become a potential option to overcome current limitations of antithrombotic therapy.

Beyond its role in hemostasis, von Willebrand factor (VWF) is an emerging mediator of vascular inflammation. Recent studies highlight the involvement of VWF and its regulator, ADAMTS13, in mechanisms that underlie vascular inflammation and immunothrombosis, like leukocyte rolling, adhesion, and extravasation; vascular permeability; ischemia/reperfusion injury; complements activation; and NETosis. The VWF/ADAMTS13 axis is implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, promoting plaque formation and inflammation through macrophage and neutrophil recruitment in inflamed lesions. Moreover, VWF and ADAMTS13 have been recently proposed as prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular, metabolic, and inflammatory diseases, such as diabetes, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis. All these features make VWF an attractive therapeutic target in thromboinflammation. Several lines of research have recently investigated “tailor-made” inhibitors of VWF. Results from animal models and clinical studies support the potent anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effect of VWF antagonism, providing reassuring data on its safety profile. This review describes the role of VWF in vascular inflammation “from bench to bedside” and provides an updated overview of the drugs that can directly interfere with the VWF/ADAMTS13 axis.