Search

Aims Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with concomitant indication to oral anticoagulation (OAC) is still debated. Methods and results A systematic review was performed on electronic databases to search for randomized controlled trials comparing an abbreviated or prolonged (≥3 months) DAPT regimen in patients with OAC and they were analysed in the framework of standard and network meta-analyses. Co-primary endpoints were major or clinically relevant non-major bleedings (MCRB) and major bleeding, while the composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was the key safety endpoint. Five studies and 7 665 patients (abbreviated DAPT n = 3 843; prolonged DAPT n = 3 822) were included. Both MCRB and major bleeding were lower with abbreviated DAPT [risk ratio (RR) 0.69 (0.52–0.91); P = 0.01 and 0.70 (0.52–0.95); P = 0.01, respectively] while MACE [RR: 0.96 (0.70–1.33); P = 0.6], all-cause death, cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis, or myocardial infarction did not differ. Network meta-analysis showed that peri-procedural DAPT had the highest probability to prevent MCRB and major bleeding (97.1 and 92.0% respectively) when compared with both short (4–6 weeks) and longer (≥3 months) DAPT regimens. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions showed consistency in different clinical scenarios and suggested a larger bleeding reduction with P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin after DAPT discontinuation. Conclusion In patients undergoing PCI with concomitant OAC indication, an abbreviated DAPT regimen reduced MCRB and major bleeding without increasing MACE or other ischaemic events. Peri-procedural DAPT and P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after DAPT withdrawal appear to be the best strategies to optimize the bleeding and ischaemic risk tradeoff. Trial registration. PROSPERO CRD284001

Background: Oral activated factor XI (FXIa) inhibitors may modulate coagulation to prevent thromboembolic events without substantially increasing bleeding. We explored the pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of the oral FXIa inhibitor asundexian for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Methods: We randomized 1601 patients with recent acute MI to oral asundexian 10, 20, or 50 mg or placebo once daily for 6 to 12 months in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2, dose-ranging trial. Patients were randomized within 5 days of their qualifying MI and received dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The effect of asundexian on FXIa inhibition was assessed at 4 weeks. The prespecified main safety outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding comparing all pooled asundexian doses with placebo. The prespecified efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or stent thrombosis comparing pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg doses with placebo. Results: The median age was 68 years, 23% of participants were women, 51% had ST-segment–elevation MI, 80% were treated with aspirin plus ticagrelor or prasugrel, and 99% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention before randomization. Asundexian caused dose-related inhibition of FXIa activity, with 50 mg resulting in >90% inhibition. Over a median follow-up of 368 days, the main safety outcome occurred in 30 (7.6%), 32 (8.1%), 42 (10.5%), and 36 (9.0%) patients receiving asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian versus placebo: hazard ratio, 0.98 [90% CI, 0.71–1.35]). The efficacy outcome occurred in 27 (6.8%), 24 (6.0%), 22 (5.5%), and 22 (5.5%) patients assigned asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg versus placebo: hazard ratio, 1.05 [90% CI, 0.69–1.61]). Conclusions: In patients with recent acute MI, 3 doses of asundexian, when added to aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, resulted in dose-dependent, near-complete inhibition of FXIa activity without a significant increase in bleeding and a low rate of ischemic events. These data support the investigation of asundexian at a dose of 50 mg daily in an adequately powered clinical trial of patients who experienced acute MI. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04304534; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search ; Unique identifier: 2019-003244-79.

The comparative effectiveness of transradial (TRA) compared with transfemoral (TFA) access in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear.Among 8404 ACS patients in the Minimising Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX (MATRIX)-Access trial, 5233 underwent noncomplex (TRA: n = 2590; TFA: n = 2643) and 1491 complex (TRA: n = 777; TFA: n = 714) PCI. Co-primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and the composite of MACE and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding (net adverse cardiovascular events [NACE]) at 30 days.Rates of 30-day MACE (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72-1.22) or NACE (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.14) did not significantly differ between groups in the complex PCI group, whereas both primary end points were lower (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.98; respectively) with TRA among noncomplex PCI patients, with negative interaction testing (PAmong ACS patients, PCI complexity did not affect the comparative efficacy and safety of TRA vs TFA, whereas the absolute risk reduction of access-site major bleeding was greater with TRA compared with TFA in complex as opposed to noncomplex PCI.

Background: The optimal antiplatelet strategy in the second year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear.Aims: We aimed to compare ticagrelor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy on clinical outcomes beyond 1 year post-PCI.Methods: This post hoc subanalysis of the open-label, all-comers, randomised GLOBAL LEADERS trial, which compared 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with 12-month aspirin monotherapy following 12-month DAPT, only included patients who, at 12 months, were free from ischaemic and bleeding events and were adherent to their assigned antiplatelet therapy. The incidences of ischaemic events (all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any stroke) and bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] type 3 or 5 bleeding) during the second year (12-24 months) were compared between patients receiving either ticagrelor or aspirin monotherapy.Results: The present analysis included 11,121 (ticagrelor monotherapy n=5,308, and aspirin monotherapy n=5,813) of the 15,991 patients enrolled in GLOBAL LEADERS. During the second year, the ischaemic composite endpoint was lower with ticagrelor monotherapy compared to aspirin monotherapy (1.9% vs 2.6%: log-rank p=0.014, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.96; p=0.022), which was primarily driven by a reduced risk of myocardial infarction. In contrast, BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding was numerically higher with ticagrelor monotherapy (0.5% vs 0.3%: log-rank p=0.051, adjusted HR 1.89, 95% CI: 1.03-3.45; p=0.005).Conclusions: Patients free from events at the end of the first year post-PCI and who adhered to their prescribed regimen had a reduced risk of ischaemic events compared to aspirin mootherapy in the second year post-PCI.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01813435

Background: It remains unclear whether P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy preserves ischemic protection while limiting bleeding risk compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objectives: We sought to assess the effects of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT vs standard DAPT in relation to PCI complexity. Methods: We pooled patient-level data from randomized controlled trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated outcomes after coronary revascularization. Complex PCI was defined as any of 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated,≥3 stents implanted,≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60mm, or chronic total occlusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding. Results: Of 22,941 patients undergoing PCI from 5 trials, 4,685 (20.4%) with complex PCI had higher rates of ischemic events. The primary efficacy endpoint was similar between P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT among patients with complex PCI (HR: 0.87; 95%CI: 0.64-1.19) and noncomplex PCI (HR: 0.91; 95%CI: 0.76-1.09; Pinteraction=0.770). The treatment effect was consistent across all the components of the complex PCI definition. Compared with DAPT, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy consistently reduced BARC 3 or 5 bleeding in complex PCI (HR: 0.51; 95%CI: 0.31-0.84) and noncomplex PCI patients (HR: 0.49; 95%CI: 0.37-0.64; Pinteraction=0.920). Conclusions: P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of fatal and ischemic events and lower risk of major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, irrespective of PCI complexity. (PROSPERO [P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Revascularization: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials]; CRD42020176853).

BACKGROUND The occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive management is associated with worse outcomes. However, the prognostic implications of transient or in-hospital persistent AKI may differ. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic implications of transient or in-hospital persistent AKI in patients with ACS. METHODS In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox) trial, 203 subjects were excluded because of incomplete information or end-stage renal disease, with a study population of 8,201 patients. Transient and persistent AKI were defined as renal dysfunction no longer or still fulfilling the AKI criteria (>0.5 mg/dL or a relative >25% increase in creatinine) at discharge, respectively. Thirty-day coprimary outcomes were the out-of-hospital composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), defined as the composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. RESULTS Persistent and transient AKI occurred in 750 (9.1%) and 587 (7.2%) subjects, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, compared with patients without AKI, the risk for 30-day coprimary outcomes was higher in patients with persistent AKI (MACE: adjusted HR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.48-3.64; P < 0.001; NACE: adjusted HR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.48-3.52; P < 0.001), driven mainly by all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 3.43; 95% CI: 2.03-5.82; P < 0.001), whereas transient AKI was not associated with higher rates of MACE or NACE. Results remained consistent when implementing the KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) criteria. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with ACS undergoing invasive management, in-hospital persistent but not transient AKI was associated with higher risk for 30-day MACE and NACE. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).

BACKGROUND Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) may be associated with better outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to other current-generation limus-eluting stents (LES). AIMS To compare BP-BES with other current-generation LES in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS We pooled individual data of Non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE)-ACS patients from two large randomized controlled trials (GLASSY and TWILIGHT). The BP-BES groups consisted mostly of GLASSY patients, while the control group (other current-generation LES) included exclusively TWILIGHT patients. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis; the key secondary outcome was target-vessel failure (TVF). To account for trial design differences, outcomes were assessed at 3 months (short-term) and between 3 and 12 months (long-term) after PCI and subsequently pooled to estimate the 12-month hazards. RESULTS Of 7107 and 6053 NSTE-ACS patients included in the short- and long-term analysis, 32.7% and 36.5% received a BP-BES, respectively. Risk of MACE associated with BP-BES versus other LES was similar at short-term (1.1% vs 1.4%, adjusted HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.51-1.29), lower at long-term (1.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted HR 0.46, 95%CI 0.32-0.67), and lower in the entire 12-month period (pooled adjusted HR 0.58, 95%CI 0.43-0.77). The cumulative 12-month risk of TVF was reduced with BP-BES (adjusted HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.38-0.70). CONCLUSION BP-BES was associated with lower 12-month risks of MACE and TVF compared to other current generation LES among NSTE-ACS patients treated with abbreviated or standard ticagrelor-based DAPT. These non-randomized findings are hypothesis-generating. CONDENSED ABSTRACT Differences in clinical outcomes may exist between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and other current-generation limus-eluting stent (LES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We pooled individual data of about 7000 Non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients undergoing PCI and treated with ticagrelor with or without aspirin from two large randomized controlled trials (GLASSY and TWILIGHT). BP-BES patients derived very largely from GLASSY and other LES patients from TWILIGHT. In this population, BP-BES compared to other current generation LES, were associated with a lower 12-month risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and target-vessel failure.

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.

BACKGROUND The role of direct oral anticoagulants as compared with vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation after successful transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has not been well studied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-masked trial comparing edoxaban with vitamin K antagonists in patients with prevalent or incident atrial fibrillation as the indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adverse events consisting of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. On the basis of a hierarchical testing plan, the primary efficacy and safety outcomes were tested sequentially for noninferiority, with noninferiority of edoxaban established if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.38. Superiority testing of edoxaban for efficacy would follow if noninferiority and superiority were established for major bleeding. RESULTS A total of 1426 patients were enrolled (713 in each group). The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 47.5% of the patients were women. Almost all the patients had atrial fibrillation before TAVR. The rate of the composite primary efficacy outcome was 17.3 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 16.5 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.31; P���=���0.01 for noninferiority). Rates of major bleeding were 9.7 per 100 person-years and 7.0 per 100 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.91; P���=���0.93 for noninferiority); the difference between groups was mainly due to more gastrointestinal bleeding with edoxaban. Rates of death from any cause or stroke were 10.0 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 11.7 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.11). CONCLUSIONS In patients with mainly prevalent atrial fibrillation who underwent successful TAVR, edoxaban was noninferior to vitamin K antagonists as determined by a hazard ratio margin of 38% for a composite primary outcome of adverse clinical events. The incidence of major bleeding was higher with edoxaban than with vitamin K antagonists. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ENVISAGE-TAVI AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02943785.).

BACKGROUND The radial artery is recommended by international guidelines as the default vascular access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) managed invasively. However, crossover from radial to femoral access is required in 4-10% of cases and has been associated with worse outcomes. No standardised algorithm exists to predict the risk of radial crossover. AIMS We sought to derive and externally validate a risk score to predict radial crossover in patients with ACS managed invasively. METHODS The derivation cohort consisted of 4,197 patients with ACS undergoing invasive management via the randomly allocated radial access from the MATRIX trial. Using logistic regression, we selected predictors of radial crossover and developed a numerical risk score. External validation was accomplished among 3,451 and 491 ACS patients managed invasively and randomised to radial access from the RIVAL and RIFLE-STEACS trials, respectively. RESULTS The MATRIX score (age, height, smoking, renal failure, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, Killip class, radial expertise) showed a c-index for radial crossover of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.67-0.75) in the derivation cohort. Discrimination ability was modest in the RIVAL (c-index: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.59-0.67) and RIFLE-STEACS (c-index: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.57-0.75) cohorts. A cut-off of ≥41 points was selected to identify patients at high risk of radial crossover. CONCLUSIONS The MATRIX score is a simple eight-item risk score which provides a standardised tool for the prediction of radial crossover among patients with ACS managed invasively. This tool can assist operators in anticipating and better addressing difficulties related to transradial procedures, potentially improving outcomes.

The appropriate duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients at high risk for bleeding after the implantation of a drug-eluting coronary stent remains unclear.One month after they had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent, we randomly assigned patients at high bleeding risk to discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy). The three ranked primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; cumulative incidences were assessed at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.Among the 4434 patients in the per-protocol population, net adverse clinical events occurred in 165 patients (7.5%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 172 (7.7%) in the standard-therapy group (difference, -0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.80 to 1.33; P0.001 for noninferiority). A total of 133 patients (6.1%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and 132 patients (5.9%) in the standard-therapy group had a major adverse cardiac or cerebral event (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.29 to 1.51; P = 0.001 for noninferiority). Among the 4579 patients in the intention-to-treat population, major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 148 patients (6.5%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 211 (9.4%) in the standard-therapy group (difference, -2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.40 to -1.24; P0.001 for superiority).One month of dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to the continuation of therapy for at least 2 additional months with regard to the occurrence of net adverse clinical events and major adverse cardiac or cerebral events; abbreviated therapy also resulted in a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. (Funded by Terumo; MASTER DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03023020.).

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients at high bleeding risk with or without oral anticoagulation (OAC) after coronary stenting remains unclear. Methods: In the investigator-initiated, randomize, open-label MASTER DAPT trial (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Standard DAPT Regimen), 4579 patients at high bleeding risk were randomized after 1-month dual APT to abbreviated or nonabbreviated APT strategies. Randomization was stratified by concomitant OAC indication. In this subgroup analysis, we report outcomes of populations with or without an OAC indication. In the population with an OAC indication, patients changed immediately to single APT for 5 months (abbreviated regimen) or continued ≥2 months of dual APT and single APT thereafter (nonabbreviated regimen). Patients without an OAC indication changed to single APT for 11 months (abbreviated regimen) or continued ≥5 months of dual APT and single APT thereafter (nonabbreviated regimen). Coprimary outcomes at 335 days after randomization were net adverse clinical outcomes (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding events); major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke); and type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding. Results: Net adverse clinical outcomes or major adverse cardiac and cerebral events did not differ with abbreviated versus nonabbreviated APT regimens in patients with OAC indication (n=1666; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.60–1.15]; and HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.60–1.30], respectively) or without OAC indication (n=2913; HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.77–1.33]; or HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.79–1.44]; Pinteraction=0.35 and 0.45, respectively). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding did not significantly differ in patients with OAC indication (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.62–1.12]) but was lower with abbreviated APT in patients without OAC indication (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.41–0.74]; Pinteraction=0.057). The difference in bleeding in patients without OAC indication was driven mainly by a reduction in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2 bleedings (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.33–0.69]; Pinteraction=0.021). Conclusions: Rates of net adverse clinical outcomes and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events did not differ with abbreviated APT in patients with high bleeding risk with or without an OAC indication and resulted in lower bleeding rates in patients without an OAC indication. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03023020.

The Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) trial showed that the addition of acetazolamide to loop diuretic therapy in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in a greater incidence of successful decongestion. 1,2 Description The goal of the trial was to evaluate whether acetazolamide, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces proximal tubular sodium reabsorp-tion, can improve the efficiency of loop diuretics, potentially leading to more and faster decongestion in patients with ADHF with volume overload. 3 Study design • Randomization • Parallel • Double-blind • Placebo-controlled • Multicentre (nationwide) • Outcome based on a congestion score (evaluated by a single observer) Patients with ADHF, clinical signs of volume overload (i.e. oedema, pleural effusion, or ascites), and an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuret-ic peptide (NT-proBNP) level of more than 1000 pg per milliliter or a B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level of more than 250 pg per milliliter were randomized to receive either intravenous acetazola-mide (500 mg once daily) (n = 259) or placebo (n = 260) added to standardized intravenous loop diuretics (at a dose equivalent to twice the oral maintenance dose). 3 Randomization was stratified according to the left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40% or >40%) and trial site. At randomization, oral loop diuretics were stopped, and the patient received an intravenous loop diuretic at double the oral maintenance dose, administered as a single bolus immediately after randomization and split into two doses (separated by ≥6 h) on each of the next 2 days. The bolus of acetazolamide or matching placebo was administered simultaneously with the first dose of loop diuretics each day. All patients received the same maintenance infusion with 500 mL dextrose 5% and 3 g MgSO4 administered over 24 h until the end of the study treatment phase. Daily oral intake of fluids and sodium was restricted to 1500 mL and 1.5 g, respectively. Patient population • Total number of trial participants: 519 subjects • Duration of follow-up: 3 months • Mean patient age: 78 years • Percentage female: 37% Other salient features/ characteristics • Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%: 43% • Median congestion score at baseline [interquartile range (IQR)]: 4 (3-6) • Median NT-proBNP level (IQR): 6173 (3068-10 896) pg per millilitre • Median home maintenance dose of furosemide equivalent (IQR): 60 (40-100) mg Inclusion criteria Patients with an elective or emergency hospital admission and clinical diagnosis of acute heart failure were eligible for the trial if: • ≥1 clinical sign of volume overload (i.e. oedema, ascites confirmed by abdominal ultrasound, or pleural effusion confirmed by a chest X-ray or chest ultrasound). • Maintenance therapy with oral loop diuretics at a dose of ≥1 mg bumetanide or≥40 mg furosemide or≥20 mg torsemide for ≥1 month. • Plasma NT-proBNP level > 1000 pg/mL or BNP level > 250 ng/mL at screening. None declared.

BackgroundAdequate on-site first aid delivery at mass gatherings (MGs) is one of the cornerstones to ensure safe and healthy MGs. We investigated medical usage rates, frequency of triage categories and type of injury or medical complaint, among attendees at MGs in Belgium.MethodsWe analysed the Medical Triage and Registration Informatics System database, which includes prospectively collected person-level data regarding individuals visiting on-site posts at MGs in Belgium. MGs attended by >10 000 people and organised ≥5 times between 2009 and 2018 were included. We determined the proportion of patients in each triage category (‘first aid’ vs ‘medical condition’ vs ‘medical emergency’ vs ‘no treatment’) and each type of injury or medical complaint, and we calculated patient presentation rate (PPR) and transfer to hospital rate (TTHR).ResultsTwenty-eight MGs, totalling 194 events, were included involving 148 265 patient visits. ‘First aid’ was the most common triage category (80%, n=118 514). The need for a nurse/physician (‘medical condition’), and for the treatment of life-threatening conditions (‘medical emergency’) was rare (8.9%, n=13 052, and 0.6%, n=860, of all patient presentations, respectively), but remarkably higher during indoor electronic dance music (EDM) events (17.8% (n=26 391) and 4.0% (n=5930), of all patient presentations, respectively). ‘Skin wounds’ were the most common injury category (42.4%, n=62 275). ‘Respiratory problems’, ‘neurological problems’, ‘intoxication’, ‘heart complaints’ and ‘gastrointestinal complaints’ were more frequent during indoor (electronic) dance, whereas ‘burns’, ‘fracture/contusion’ and ‘skin wounds’ were higher during outdoor music, sports events and city festivals, respectively. PPR (per 10 000 attendees) was highest for outdoor EDM and outdoor music (median 130 (IQR 79) and 129 (IQR 104), respectively). TTHR (per 10 000 attendees) was highest for indoor EDM (median 4.4 (IQR 8.5)).ConclusionMedical usage rates, proportion of patients in triage and injury or medical complaint categories varied across different MG categories, suggesting opportunities for planning medical coverage at these events.

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare ticagrelor monotherapy with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents. Background The role of abbreviated DAPT followed by an oral P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI remains uncertain. Methods Two randomized trials, including 14,628 patients undergoing PCI, comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints were identified, and individual patient data were analyzed using 1-step fixed-effect models. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42019143120 ). The primary outcomes were the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding tested for superiority and, if met, the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year, tested for noninferiority against a margin of 1.25 on a hazard ratio (HR) scale. Results Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in fewer patients with ticagrelor than DAPT (0.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; HR: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41 to 0.75; p Conclusions Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower risk for major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, without a concomitant increase in ischemic events.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the impact of access-site crossover in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management via radial or femoral access. BACKGROUND There are limited data on the clinical implications of access-site crossover. METHODS In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox)-Access trial, 8,404 patients with acute coronary syndrome were randomized to radial or femoral access. Patients undergoing access-site crossover or successful access site were investigated. Thirty-day coprimary outcomes were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and a composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding (net adverse clinical events [NACE]). RESULTS Access-site crossover occurred in 183 of 4,197 patients (4.4%) in the radial group (mainly to femoral access) and 108 of 4,207 patients (2.6%) in the femoral group (mainly to radial access). In multivariate analysis, the risk for coprimary outcomes was not significantly higher with radial crossover compared with successful radial (MACE: adjusted rate ratio [adjRR]: 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.93; p = 0.32; NACE: adjRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94 to 2.06; p = 0.094) or successful femoral access (MACE: adjRR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.81; p = 0.47; NACE: adjRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.86; p = 0.24). Access site-related Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding was higher with radial crossover than successful radial access. Femoral crossover remained associated with higher risks for MACE (adjRR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87; p = 0.007) and NACE (adjRR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.62; p = 0.019) compared with successful femoral access. Results remained consistent after excluding patients with randomized access not attempted. CONCLUSIONS Crossover from radial to femoral access abolishes the bleeding benefit offered by the radial over femoral artery but does not appear to increase the risk for MACE or NACE compared with successful radial or femoral access. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox [MATRIX]; NCT01433627) (C) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. The MATRIX trial was sponsored by Societa Italiana di Cardiologia Invasiva (a nonprofit organization), which received grant support from The Medicines Company and Terumo. This substudy did not receive any direct or indirect funding. Dr. Leonardi has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/ Pfizer, and Chiesi; and has received personal fees from Bayer outside the submitted work. Dr. Vranckx has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Terumo, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Bayer Health Care outside the submitted work. Dr. Frigoli is affiliated with CTU Bern, University of Bern, which has a staff policy of not accepting honoraria or consultancy fees. However, CTU Bern is involved in the design, conduct, or analysis of clinical studies funded by not-forprofit and for- profit organizations. In particular, pharmaceutical and medical device companies provide direct funding to some of these studies. For an up- to-date list of CTU Bern's conflicts of interest, see http://www.ctu.unibe.ch/research/declaration_of_interest/index_eng. html. Dr. Windecker has received research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, CSL Behring, Daiichi- Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Querbet, Polares, Sanofi, Terumo, and Sinomed; serves as an unpaid member of the steering and/or executive groups of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Polares, Sinomed, V-Wave, and Xeltis (but has not received personal payments from any pharmaceutical company or device manufacturer); and is a member of the steering and/or executive committee groups of several investigator- initiated trials that receive funding from industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants and personal fees from Abbott, Terumo, and AstraZeneca; has received personal fees from Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Amgen, Alvimedica, Biosensors, and Idorsia; and has received grants from Medicure outside the submitted work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Valgimigli, M (corresponding author), Ente Osped Cantonale, Cardioctr Ticino Inst, Via Tesserete 48, CH-6900 Lugano, Switzerland. marco.valgimigli@cardiocentro.org

For 20 years, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), consisting of the combination of aspirin and a platelet P2Y

Objectives: We aimed to investigate the prognostic utility of the anatomical CABG SYNTAX and logistic clinical SYNTAX scores for mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG). Background: The anatomical SYNTAX score evaluated the anatomical complexity of coronary artery disease and helped predict the prognosis of patients undergoing PCI. The anatomical CABG SYNTAX score was derived from the anatomical SYNTAX score in patients with prior CABG, whilst the logistic clinical SYNTAX score was developed by incorporating clinical factors into the anatomical SYNTAX score. Methods: We calculated the anatomical CABG SYNTAX score and logistic clinical SYNTAX score in 205 patients in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial. The predictive abilities of these scores for 2-year all-cause mortality were evaluated. Results: Using the median scores as categorical thresholds between low and high score groups, the logistic clinical SYNTAX score was able to discriminate the risk of 2-year mortality, unlike the anatomical CABG SYNTAX score. The logistic clinical SYNTAX was significantly better at predicting 2-year mortality, compared to the anatomical CABG SYNTAX score, as evidenced by AUC values in receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis (0.806 vs. 0.582, p

Introduction and objectives Patients who are vulnerable to hemodynamic or electrical disorders (VP) are often excluded from clinical trials and data on the optimal access-site or antithrombotic treatment are limited. We assessed outcomes of transradial vs transfemoral access and bivalirudin vs unfractionated heparin (UFH) in VP with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. Methods The MATRIX trial randomized 8404 patients to radial or femoral access and 7213 patients to bivalirudin or UFH. Among them, 934 (11.1%) were deemed VP due to advanced Killip class (n = 808), cardiac arrest (n = 168), or both (n = 42). The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACE: death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (NACE: MACE or major bleeding). Results MACE and NACE were similarly reduced with radial vs femoral access in VP and non-VP. Transradial access was also associated with consistent relative benefits in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding with greater absolute benefits in VP. The effects of bivalirudin vs UFH on MACE and NACE were consistent in VP and non-VP. Bivalirudin was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in VP but not in non-VP, with borderline interaction testing. Bivalirudin reduced bleeding in both VP and non-VP with a larger absolute benefit in VP. Conclusions In acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing invasive management, the effects of randomized treatments were consistent in VP and non-VP, but absolute risk reduction with radial access and bivalirudin were greater in VP, with a 5- to 10-fold lower number needed to treat for benefits. Trial registry number: NCT01433627.

Resumen Introduccion y objetivos A menudo se excluye de los ensayos clinicos a los pacientes hemodinamica o electricamente vulnerables, por lo que escasea la informacion sobre el acceso vascular y el tratamiento antitrombotico optimos. En este trabajo se estudia la evolucion de los pacientes vulnerables con sindrome coronario agudo tratados invasivamente segun el acceso fuera radial o femoral y el tratamiento fuera con bivalirudina o con heparina no fraccionada (HNF). Metodos El estudio MATRIX aleatorizo a 8.404 pacientes a acceso radial o femoral y a 7.213 pacientes a bivalirudina o a HNF. Se considero vulnerables a 934 pacientes (11,1%) debido a clase Killip avanzada (808), parada cardiaca (168) o ambas a la vez (42). El objetivo primario compuesto a 30 dias fueron los eventos cardiovasculares y cerebrovasculares mayores (MACE: muerte, infarto de miocardio e ictus) y los eventos clinicos adversos netos (NACE: MACE o hemorragia grave). Resultados El acceso radial, comparado con el femoral, redujo los MACE y NACE de modo similar en pacientes vulnerables y no vulnerables. El acceso radial se asocio con un claro beneficio relativo en la mortalidad total y cardiovascular y las hemorragias BARC 3 o 5, con mayor beneficio absoluto en los pacientes vulnerables. Los efectos de la bivalirudina comparada con la HNF en MACE y NACE concuerdan entre pacientes vulnerables y no vulnerables. La bivalirudina se asocio con menores mortalidad cardiovascular y por todas las causas en pacientes vulnerables, pero no en los no vulnerables, con test de interaccion en el limite. La bivalirudina redujo las hemorragias en ambos grupos de pacientes, con un beneficio absoluto mayor en el caso de los pacientes vulnerables. Conclusiones En pacientes con sindrome coronario agudo sometidos a tratamiento invasivo, los efectos de los tratamientos aleatorizados fueron concordantes entre los pacientes vulnerables y los no vulnerables, pero la reduccion del riesgo absoluto del acceso radial y bivalirudina fue mayor en los vulnerables, con una reduccion de 5 a 10 veces en el numero de pacientes que es necesario tratar. Numero de registro: NCT01433627.

Background The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for bifurcation lesions. Methods GLOBAL LEADERS was a randomized, superiority, all-comers trial comparing 1-month DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy (experimental treatment) with standard 12-month DAPT followed by 12-month aspirin monotherapy (reference treatment) in patients treated with a biolimus A9-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) at 2 years. Results Among the 15,845 patients included in this subgroup analysis, 2,498 patients (15.8%) underwent PCI for at least one bifurcation lesion. The incidence of the primary endpoint was similar between the bifurcation and nonbifurcation groups (4.7 vs. 4.0%, p = .083). The experimental treatment had no significant effect on the primary endpoint according to the presence/absence of a bifurcation lesion (bifurcation: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-1.07; nonbifurcation: HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.76-1.07, p for interaction = .343), but was associated with significant reduction in definite or probable stent thrombosis (p for interaction = .022) and significant excess of stroke (p for interaction = .018) when compared with the reference treatment. Conclusions After PCI for bifurcation lesions using 1-month of DAPT followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months did not demonstrate explicit benefit regarding all-cause death or new Q-wave MI as in the overall trial. AstraZeneca; Biosensors International Group; Medicines company

Backgrounds: Data on optimal antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing stenting of the proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) are limited. Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, a prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled trial, comparing the experimental strategy (1-month dual anti-platelet therapy [DAPT] followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy) with the reference regimen (12-month DAPT followed by 12-month aspirin monotherapy) in relation to stenting of the proximal LAD. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) and key secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding at two years. Results: Among 15,845 patients included in the analysis, 3823 (23.9%) patients underwent stenting of the proximal LAD, while 12,022 (75.2%) did not. In the proximal LAD stenting group, there was no significant difference in the risk of the primary endpoint between the two antiplatelet strategies (3.38% vs. 3.93%; hazard ratio [HR]:0.86; 95% CI:0.62–1.20; Pinteraction = 0.951). However, the risk of any MI (2.63% vs. 3.88%; HR:0.68; 95% CI:0.47–0.97; Pinteraction = 0.015) and any revascularization (7.84% vs. 9.94%; HR:0.78; 95% CI:0.63–0.97; Pinteraction = 0.058) was significantly lower in the experimental strategy group, while demonstrating a similar risk of BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding between the two antiplatelet strategies (1.93% vs. 1.99%; HR:0.98; 95% CI:0.62–1.54; Pinteraction = 0.981). Conclusions: The present study showed patients having stenting to the proximal LAD could potentially benefit from the experimental strategy with lower ischaemic events without a trade-off in major bleeding at two years.

BACKGROUND Nonadherence to antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is common, even in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of nonadherence to study protocol regimens in the MASTER DAPT (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen) trial. METHODS At 1-month after PCI, 4,579 high bleeding risk patients were randomized to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) for 11 months (or 5 months in patients on oral anticoagulation [OAC]) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for ≥2 months followed by SAPT. Coprimary outcomes included net adverse clinical events (NACE), major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACE), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (MCB) at 335 days. Inverse probability-of-censoring weights were used to correct for nonadherence Academic Research Consortium type 2 or 3. RESULTS In total, 464 (20.2%) patients in the abbreviated-treatment and 214 (9.4%) in the standard-treatment groups incurred nonadherence Academic Research Consortium type 2 or 3. At inverse probability-of-censoring weights analyses, NACE (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.88-1.27) or MACE (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.83-1.40) did not differ, and MCB was lower with abbreviated compared with standard treatment (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.60-0.73) consistently across OAC subgroups; among OAC patients, SAPT discontinuation 6 months after PCI was associated with similar MACE and lower MCB (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.22-0.99) compared with SAPT continuation. CONCLUSIONS In the MASTER DAPT adherent population, 1-month compared with ≥3-month DAPT was associated with similar NACE or MACE and lower MCB. Among OAC patients, SAPT discontinuation after 6 months was associated with similar MACE and lower MCB than SAPT continuation (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen [MASTER DAPT]; NCT03023020).

For 20 years, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), consisting of the combination of aspirin and a platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, has been the gold standard of antithrombotic pharmacology after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the past 5 years, several investigations have challenged this paradigm by testing the efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (that is, without aspirin) following a short course of DAPT. Collectively, these studies suggested a reduction in the risk of major bleeding and no significant increase in thrombotic or ischaemic events compared with guideline-recommended DAPT. Current recommendations are evolving to inform clinical practice on the ideal candidates for P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after PCI. Generalizing the results of studies of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy requires a thorough understanding of their design, populations, interventions, comparators and results. In this Review, we provide an up-to-date overview on the use of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after PCI, including supporting pharmacodynamic and clinical evidence, practical recommendations and future directions.

Aims The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) is still debated. The current study, using the totality of existing evidence, evaluated the impact of an abbreviated DAPT regimen in HBR patients. Methods and results A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to search randomized clinical trials comparing abbreviated [i.e. very-short (1 month) or short (3 months)] with standard (≥6 months) DAPT in HBR patients without indication for oral anticoagulation. A total of 11 trials, including 9006 HBR patients, were included. Abbreviated DAPT reduced major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding [risk ratio (RR): 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61–0.94; I2 = 28%], major bleeding (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64–0.99, I2 = 0%), and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65–0.95, I2 = 0%) compared with standard DAPT. No difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis was observed. Results were consistent, irrespective of HBR definition and clinical presentation. Conclusion In HBR patients undergoing PCI, a 1- or 3-month abbreviated DAPT regimen was associated with lower bleeding and cardiovascular mortality, without increasing ischaemic events, compared with a ≥6-month DAPT regimen. Study registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42021284004

Contains fulltext : 245655.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Historically, aspirin has been the primary treatment for the prevention of ischaemic events in patients with coronary artery disease. For patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) standard treatment has been 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel, followed by aspirin monotherapy; however, DAPT is undeniably associated with an increased risk of bleeding. For over a decade novel P2Y12 inhibitors, which have increased specificity, potency, and efficacy have been available, prompting studies which have tested whether these newer agents can be used in aspirin-free antiplatelet regimens to augment clinical benefits in patients post-PCI. Among these studies, the GLOBAL LEADERS trial is the largest by cohort size, and so far has provided a wealth of evidence in a variety of clinical settings and patient groups. This article summarizes the state-of-the-art evidence obtained from the GLOBAL LEADERS and other trials of aspirin-free strategies.

Objectives This study aimed to assess the predictive ability of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score 2.0 in contemporary acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, and its relation to antiplatelet strategies.Background The predictive value of the GRACE risk score in the contemporary ACS cohort and the appropriate antiplatelet regimen according to the risk remain unclear.Methods This is a subgroup analysis of the all-comers, randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial, comparing ticagrelor monotherapy versus conventional dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The GRACE risk score 2.0 with 1-year mortality prediction was implemented. The randomized antiplatelet effect was assessed in predefined three GRACE risk-groups; low-risk (GRACE 140).Results The GRACE risk score was available in 6,594 out of 7,487 ACS patients among whom 1,743, 2,823, and 2,028 patients were classified as low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk, respectively. At 1 year, all-cause mortality occurred in 120 patients (1.8%). The discrimination ability of the GRACE model was moderate (C-statistic = 0.742), whereas 1-year mortality risk was overestimated (mean predicted mortality rate: 3.9%; the Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square: 21.47; p = 0.006). There were no significant interactions between the GRACE risk strata and effects of the ticagrelor monotherapy on ischemic or bleeding outcomes at 1 year compared to the reference strategy.Conclusion The GRACE risk score 2.0 is valuable in discriminating high risk ACS patients, however, the recalibration of the score is recommended for better risk stratification. There is no significant differences in efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy across the three GRACE risk strata. WOA Institution: National University of Ireland Galway Blended DEAL: IReL

Interest in the use of mechanical circulatory support for patients presenting with cardiogenic shock is growing rapidly. The Impella (Abiomed Inc), a microaxial, continuous-flow, short-term, ventricular assist device (VAD), requires meticulous postimplantation management. Because systemic anticoagulation is needed to prevent pump thrombosis, patients are exposed to increased bleeding risk, further aggravated by sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and high shear stress-induced acquired von Willebrand syndrome. The precarious balance between bleeding and thrombosis in percutaneous VAD-supported cardiogenic shock patients is often the main reason that patient outcomes are jeopardized, and there is a lack of data addressing optimal anticoagulation management strategies during percutaneous VAD support. Here, we present a parallel anti-Factor Xa/activated partial thromboplastin time-guided anticoagulation algorithm and discuss pitfalls of heparin monitoring in critically ill patients. This review will guide physicians toward a more standardized (anti)coagulation approach to tackle device-related morbidity and mortality in this critically ill patient group.

Background The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary drug‐eluting stent placement in adults with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) versus acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remains uncertain. Methods and Results This was a prespecified subgroup analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to the experimental or reference strategy, stratified by ACS (experimental, n=3750; reference, n=3737) versus SCAD (experimental, n=4230; reference, n=4251). The experimental strategy was 75 to 100 mg aspirin daily plus 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily for 1 month, followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy. The reference strategy was 75 to 100 mg aspirin daily plus either 75 mg clopidogrel daily (for SCAD) or 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily (for ACS) for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months. The primary end point at 2 years was a composite of all‐cause mortality or non‐fatal centrally adjudicated new Q‐wave myocardial infarction. The key secondary safety end point was site‐reported Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 3 or 5 bleeding. The primary end point occurred in 147 (3.92%) versus 169 (4.52%) patients with ACS (rate ratio [RR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69–1.08; P =0.189), and in 157 (3.71%) versus 180 (4.23%) patients with SCAD (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71–1.08; P =0.221) with experimental and reference strategy, respectively ( P ‐interaction=0.926). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in 73 (1.95%) versus 100 (2.68%) patients with ACS (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54–0.98; P =0.037), and in 90 (2.13%) versus 69 (1.62%) patients with SCAD (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.97–1.81; P =0.081; P ‐interaction=0.007). Conclusions While there was no evidence for differences in efficacy between treatment strategies by subgroup, the experimental strategy appeared to reduce bleeding risk in patients with ACS but not in patients with SCAD. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01813435.

Item does not contain fulltext

There has been a significant increase in the use of short-term percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) as acute circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and to provide haemodynamic support during interventional procedures, including high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Although frequently considered together, pVADs differ in their haemodynamic effects, management, indications, insertion techniques, and monitoring requirements. This consensus document summarizes the views of an expert panel by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and appraises the value of short-term pVAD. It reviews the pathophysiological context and possible indications for pVAD in different clinical settings and provides guidance regarding the management of pVAD based on existing evidence and best current practice.

From the aDivision of Cardiology, A.O.U. "Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele," University of Catania, Catania, Italy; b3rd Medical Department, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine and Sigmund Freud University, Medical Faculty, Vienna, Austria; cCardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York; dLiverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom; eAalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark; fBrigham and Women's Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; gDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; hDepartment of Cardiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hartcentrum Hasselt, and faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences at the University of Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium; iCardiology Department, Nimes University Hospital, ACTION Study Group, Montpellier University, Nimes, France; jDepartment of Cardiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands; kMayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota; and the lDivision of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Capodanno has received speakers honoraria from Bayer, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr. Huber has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Portola, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Mehran has received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly/Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis, and OrbusNeich; has served as a consultant to Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Medscape, Siemens Medical Solutions, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (no fees), Roivant Sciences, and Sanofi; has served as an institutional consultant (payment to institution) for Abbott Vascular and Spectranetics/Phillips/Volcano Corporation; has served on the Executive Committee for Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has received institutional (payment to institution) Advisory Board funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis; has received Data and Safety Monitoring Board membership funding to his institution from Watermark Research; and has < 1% equity with Claret Medical and Elixir Medical. Dr. Lip has served as a consultant for Bayer/Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Medtronic, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Verseon, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received speaker's honoraria from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Medtronic, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr. Faxon has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Baim. Dr. Granger has received personal fees from Janssen, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; has received research grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Merck & Co., Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Rho Pharmaceuticals, Verseon, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Vranckx has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, CLS Behring, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr. Lopes has received consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BristolMyers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received institutional grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Montalescot has received research grants to the institution or consulting/lecture fees from Abbott, Amgen, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical, Brigham Women's Hospital, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Daiichi-Sankyo, Idorsia, Lilly, Europa, Elsevier, Federation Francaise de Cardiologie, ICAN, Medtronic, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Lead-Up, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, The Mount Sinai School, TIMI Study Group, and WebMD. Dr. Cannon has received institutional grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol-Myers Squibb; institutional grants from Daiichi-Sankyo and Janssen; and honoraria from Amgen, Amarin, Merck, Alnylam, Kowa, Pfizer, Eisai Co., Ltd., Sanofi, and Regeneron. Dr. Ten Berg has received grant support, Advisory Board fees, consulting fees, and lecture fees from AstraZeneca; has received Advisory Board fees, consulting fees, and lectures fees from Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, The Medicines Company, Accumetrics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Bayer; and has received grant support from ZonMw and AstraZeneca. Dr. Gersh has received research contracts with Apple, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic Foundation, Pfizer, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health; and has a consulting relationship with Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BristolMyers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Gilead, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Bhatt has served on the Advisory Board of Cardax, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; has served on the Board of Directors of Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; has served as Chair of the American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee, NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee, and the VA CART Research and Publications Committee; has served on the Data Monitoring Committees of Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi-Sankyo), and the Population Health Research Institute; has received honoraria from American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC. org; Vice-Chair, ACC Accreditation Committee), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI Clinical Trial Steering Committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim), Belvoir Publications (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees), HMP Global (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national coleader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today's Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), and WebMD (CME Steering Committees); has served as Deputy Editor of Clinical Cardiology; has received research funding from Abbott, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Eisai, Ethicon, Forest Laboratories, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lilly, Medtronic, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Synaptic, and The Medicines Company; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease); has served as site coinvestigator for Biotronik, Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), and Svelte; has served as a Trustee of the American College of Cardiology; and has performed unfunded research for FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria as an individual from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has participated in review activities for CeloNova and St. Jude Medical; and has received institutional grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, and Renal Guard Solutions. Stefan Hohnloser, MD, served as Guest Associate Editor for this paper.

The Academic Research Consortium (ARC) and the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative have recently published updated clinical and angiographic endpoint definitions for percutaneous coronary intervention trials. The aim of this document is to provide practical guidance to facilitate and harmonize the implementation of those definitions in randomized trials or registries, as well as to foster consistency among independent adjudication committees. The authors compared the ARC-2 and Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative definitions to identify areas of consistency, complex scenarios, and definitions in need of further standardization. Furthermore, the authors compared the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction with the ARC-2 definition of myocardial infarction. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition of periprocedural myocardial infarction was also compared with the ARC-2 definition and the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction. An in-depth assessment was done for each individual clinical endpoint to guide clinical investigators on reporting and classifying clinical adverse events. Finally, the authors propose standard streamlined data capture templates for reporting and adjudicating death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, stent or scaffold thrombosis, and bleeding.