Search

Background: Cangrelor, the first intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor (P2Y12-I), has been approved on the basis of three large RCTs from the CHAMPION program which nevertheless have been criticized for the low bleeding risk of the enrolled patients, the large quote of chronic coronary syndromes (CCS), and the use of Clopidogrel as control arm even in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We sought to investigate, in the setting of ACS, the comparative performance of Cangrelor in terms of in-hospital ischemic and haemorrhagic outcomes compared with the current gold-standard of oral P2Y12-I. Methods: The study retrospectively enrolled 686 consecutive patients admitted to the Divisions of Cardiology of Policlinico of Bari and L. Bonomo Hospital of Andria for ACS and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The study population was divided according to the P2Y12-I treatment strategy in two groups: patients given an oral P2Y12-I and patients receiving Cangrelor in the CathLab followed by an oral P2Y12-I. Clinical endpoints included death, ischemic and bleeding events occurring during hospital stay. Results: Cangrelor treated patients presented higher clinical risk profile at presentation and faced higher death rate. However, after PS matching, in-hospital mortality resulted comparable between the groups and Cangrelor use was associated with reduced in-hospital definite stent thrombosis (p=0.03). Conclusions: Data from our real-world registry highlight that, in the setting of ACS, Cangrelor is prevalently used in patients with very challenging clinical presentations. The adjusted analysis provides for the first time promising data on stent thrombosis reduction associated with Cangrelor use.

The ACC/TVT score is a specific predictive model of in-hospital mortality for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to test its predictive accuracy in comparison with standard surgical risk models (Logistic Euroscore, Euroscore II, and STS-PROM) in the population of TAVI patients included in the multicenter RISPEVA (Registro Italiano GISE sull'impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea) registry. The study cohort included 3293 patients who underwent TAVI between 2008 and 2019. The 4 risk scores were calculated for all patients. For all scores, the capability to predict 30-day mortality was assessed by means of several analyses testing calibration and discrimination. The ACC/TVT score showed moderate discrimination, with a C-statistics for 30-day mortality of 0.63, not significantly different from the standard surgical risk models. The ACC/TVT score demonstrated, in contrast, better calibration compared with the other scores, as proved by a greater correspondence between estimated probabilities and the actual observations. However, when the ACC/TVT score was tested in the subgroup of patients treated in a more contemporary period (from 2016 on), it revealed a slight tendency to lose discrimination and to overestimate mortality risk. In conclusion, in comparison with the standard surgical risk models, the ACC/TVT score demonstrated better prediction accuracy for estimation of 30-day mortality in terms of calibration. Nevertheless, its predictive reliability remained suboptimal and tended to worsen in patients treated more recently.

The differential outcomes between pure/predominant aortic stenosis (AS) and mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are still debated.To evaluate the comparative clinical outcomes of patients with MAVD and AS undergoing TAVI using data from the RISPEVA registry.A total of 3263 patients were included. Of the 3263 patients, 656 with concomitant moderate/severe aortic regurgitation constituted the MAVD group and 2607 constituted the AS cohort. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and 1-year survival. Postprocedural paravalvular regurgitation (PPVR), cerebrovascular events, bleeding, and vascular complications were assessed at 30 days.In the overall population, 30-day mortality in the MAVD group was higher than in AS patients (4.3% vs 2.6%;P=.02); however, no differences were detected after propensity-score matching (4.1% vs 3.5%; P=.62). One-year survival was comparable between MAVD and AS patients in both unmatched and matched cohorts. Left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and PPVR, but not baseline MAVD, were predictors of 30-day mortality. The incidence of PPVR was higher in the MAVD group vs the AS group; this difference was not confirmed in patients implanted with a balloon-expandable device.MAVD per se did not negatively affect patients' prognoses, but appears to identify a more complex cohort of patients with a worse clinical and functional status, probably referred to TAVI in a later stage of the disease. Patients with MAVD had a greater propensity to develop PPVR, which is a known predictor of worse outcome; this tendency seems to be mitigated by the implantation of balloon-expandable valves.

The differential outcomes across the age spectrum of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) recipients are still debated. Aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of oldest-old patients undergoing TAVI in the large "Registro Italiano GISE sull'impianto di Valvola Aortica Percutanea (RISPEVA)" registry. A total of 3,507 patients were stratified according to age: 1,381 were ≥85 years, 2,126 were85 years. Primary endpoints were death at 30-days and complete follow-up (FU) (medium 368 days). Cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, bleedings, vascular complications at 30-days and complete FU were considered. In the unadjusted analysis, 30-days mortality in the oldest-old group was higher than in younger patients (4.2% vs 2.4%; p = 0.007); this difference kept true also at complete FU (19.6% vs 15.9%; p = 0.014). After propensity score (PS) matching, the oldest-old population showed a higher mortality solely at 30-days (4.7% vs 2.4%; p = 0.016), while the survival at complete FU was similar to that of younger patients (20.1% vs 18.0%; p = 0.286). The incidence of non-fatal outcomes resulted comparable between the 2 groups, also after propensity score matching. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis procedural major or disabling bleedings, cerebrovascular events, cardiogenic shock resulted predictors of 30-days death in the oldest-old cohort. In conclusion, patients ≥85 years can safely undergo TAVI being not more exposed to procedural complications than those85 years; nevertheless they showed worse 30-days mortality, probably driven by reduced tolerance to complications. Passed the critical periprocedural phase, patients ≥85 years had a similar survival to those85 years with comparable risk profile.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion primarily due to cardiac dysfunction. This condition is the most common cause of death in patients affected by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite early revascularization, prompt optimal medical therapy, and up-to-date mechanical circulatory supports, mortality of patients with CS remains high.The objective of this review is to summarize epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment options of CS in light of the new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations. The latest European guidelines on myocardial revascularization have reviewed the previous guidelines with respect to early multivessel revascularization and routine use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with AMI-related CS.Most of the current evidences come partly from randomized trials, but mostly from observational registries because of the difficulty to test different treatments in this life-threatening clinical setting.Some of the latest studies highlight the potential crucial benefit of newly introduced mechanical circulatory support devices, although evidences are not sufficient to definitely assess the benefit/risk ratio of the different systems.Many questions remain unanswered in this field, and further trials are advocated to better elucidate the best medical, reperfusion, and circulatory support approaches aimed to improve the poor prognosis of patients with CS after AMI.

The next iteration of drug-eluting stents (DESs) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has focused on bioresorbable polymers and thin struts. The Alex Plus DES is a new-generation sirolimus-eluting device with 70-μm cobalt chromium struts, a 5-μm bioresorbable polymer and a very small profile. Despite such favorable features, limited data are available to estimate the risk-benefit profile of Alex Plus. We aimed at comparing the effectiveness of Alex Plus in real-world practice.Retrospective clinical data on patients treated with Alex Plus at our institutions were collected and clinical outcome data over follow-up were obtained, comparing them with those of subjects receiving Xience, a leading DES with permanent polymer.A total of 100 patients (126 lesions) treated with Alex Plus and 753 subjects (1020 lesions) receiving Xience were included. Baseline and procedural features were largely similar in the 2 groups, with the notable exception of age, sex, and left circumflex coronary artery as the target vessel. Clinical follow-up showed that patients with Alex Plus had a significantly higher risk of major adverse clinical event (MACE), mainly driven by an excess in repeat PCI (hazard ratio, 4.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.83-8.20; P.001). Even after propensity-score matching, Alex Plus was associated with an increased risk of MACE (P.001).Our clinical experience to date with Alex Plus has been disappointing, despite the favorable promises. Further improvements are likely needed in the Alex Plus DES, most likely in drug delivery, before this device is considered for routine clinical use in complex patients or lesions.

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.

We aim to compare Polymer-Free Biolimus-Eluting Stent (PF-BES) with Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting stent (DP-EES) in unselected patients. PF-BES showed a favorable profile in high-bleeding risk patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Limited data are available on PF-BES compared with second-generation durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents in patients eligible for standard dual antiplatelet therapy. A total of 848 consecutive patients were enrolled: 306 patients were treated with PF-BES and 542 with DP-EES. Stent performance was tested in a propensity score-matched population and in a Complex Higher-Risk and Indicated Patients (CHIP) subpopulation. A per-lesion analysis on 1,204 lesions (PF-BES = 424 vs DP-EES = 780) was also performed. At a medium follow-up of 18.5 ± 5.0 months, no differences in the matched population were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (PF-BES 9.0% vs DP-EES 4.5%; p 0.091), myocardial infarction (PF-BES 6.2% vs DP-EES 2.3%; p 0.111), stent restenosis (PF-BES 2.3% vs DP-EES 0.0%; p 0.123), definite or probable stent thrombosis (PF-BES 2.8% vs DP-EES 1.1%; p 0.448). A significant inferior rate of restenosis was observed in the DP-EES arm in the whole (PF-BES 2.3% vs DP-EES 0.6%; p 0.041) and CHIP populations (PF-BES 4.3% vs DP-EES 0.5%; p 0.023), as well as in the per-lesion analysis (DP-EES 0.4% vs PF-BES 1.7%; p 0.039). In conclusion, in a real-world cohort PF-BES performed similarly to DP-EES in terms of restenosis and stent thrombosis in the matched population. Nonetheless, in the whole and CHIP populations, as well as in the per-lesion analysis, restenosis occurrence resulted higher in the PF-BES group.

Background Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure represents a novel therapeutic chance for patients with contraindications to long-term anticoagulation therapy, such as those affected by Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia (HHT) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, current experts' indications suggest the post-procedural administration of antithrombotic therapies to minimize the residual thromboembolic risk due to AF and to the need for device endothelialization. The aim of our study was to investigate the safety and effectiveness of LAA closure in preventing arterial thromboembolism in a very high-bleeding risk group, such as HHT patients, who are at risk not to tolerate even the mild post-procedural antithrombotic therapy usually recommended. Methods Eight HHT-affected patients with non-valvular AF, high-bleeding risk and/or known intolerance to antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy were treated with interventional LAA occlusion with the Amplatzer™ Cardiac Plug™ and Amplatzer™ Amulet™ devices. Device implantation was successful in all patients. Results Post-procedural antiplatelet/anticoagulation therapy was attempted in seven patients: adherence to therapy exceeded six months only for one, while four patients suspended all antithrombotic medications within 30 days from the procedure due to an increase in bleeding frequency and/or severity and the other two discontinued treatment within six months; a single patient was not prescribed any antithrombotic therapy. At a medium follow-up of 22.4±14.3 months no thromboembolic episodes attributable to AF or device related thrombosis were reported. Two deaths were recorded 1231 and 783 days after the procedure which were classified as unrelated to any cerebral or cardiovascular accident. Conclusions Our study suggests that the percutaneous LAA closure in HHT patients with AF could be safe and effective in preventing arterial systemic thromboembolism, also in the presence of reduced or absent post-interventional antithrombotic treatment. LAA occluder implantation can represent a valid and potentially life-saving alternative to lifelong anticoagulant therapy in HHT, as in other very high-bleeding risk patients.

Background and aims Despite the relation between autoimmune diseases and increased atherosclerotic risk is established, the influence of autoimmune disorders on in-stent restenosis (ISR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is only partly known. ISR is an aberrant reparative process mainly characterized by an increased number of vascular smooth muscle cells and excessive deposition of extracellular proteoglycans and type III collagen. Chronic inflammation, always present in autoimmune diseases, modulates the endothelial response to PCI. Aim of this review is to resume the current evidence on the association between ISR and autoimmune diseases, focusing on pathogenic mechanisms and therapeutic targets. Methods We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on the relationship between ISR and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), antiphospholipid-antibodies syndrome (APS), inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), and Hashimoto's thyroiditis (HT). Results Patients affected with IDDM, RA, SLE, APS, IBD and HT proved to face higher rates of ISR compared to the general population. The endothelial dysfunction seems the principal common pathogenic pathway for ISR and is attributed to both the immune system disorder and the systemic inflammation. Some evidence suggested that methotrexate and anti-tumor necrosis factor treatments can be effective in reducing ISR, while antibodies against vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 showed to reduce neointimal hyperplasia in animal models. Conclusions Autoimmune diseases are a risk factor for ISR. The study of the potential cardiovascular benefits of the current therapies, mainly anti-inflammatory drugs, and the pursuit of innovative treatments appear of paramount interest.

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.

There is limited information on the presenting characteristics, prognosis, and therapeutic approaches of young patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to investigate the baseline characteristics, in-hospital treatment, and outcomes of a wide cohort

To summarize epidemiology, pathophysiology, prognostic relevance, and treatment options of coronary artery disease (CAD) when coupled with severe aortic stenosis (SAS). In regard to treatment options, we focused on the most recently adopted therapeutic approaches and on the future perspectives in light of the latest percutaneous and surgical technical improvements in the field of both CAD and SAS management. Nowadays, SAS is the most common valve disease requiring intervention, either surgical or percutaneous. On the other side, CAD is one of the leading causes of death in the developed countries. CAD and degenerative SAS share several predisposing factors and are often concurrently found in clinical practice. Despite in the last years the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been deeply changing the therapeutic approach to SAS, the correct management of patients with concomitant CAD remains controversial due to limited and heterogeneous data in the literature. Coronary revascularization is often performed in patients with concomitant CAD and SAS. Complete surgical approach is still the standard of care according to international guidelines. However, in light of the recent results of TAVR trials, the therapeutic approach is expected to change. To date, percutaneous coronary intervention performed before TAVR is safe and feasible even if the optimal timing for revascularization remains debated. Due to the great complexity of the patients affected by SAS and CAD and until unquestionable truths will come from large randomized trials, the role of the Heart Team in the decision-making process is of primary importance to guarantee the best tailored therapeutic strategy for the single patient.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a pathological condition that first involves the gastrointestinal wall but can also trigger a systemic inflammatory state and thus extraintestinal manifestations. Systemic inflammation is probably secondary to the passage of bacterial products into the bloodstream because of altered intestinal permeability and the consequent release of proinflammatory mediators. Inflammation, through several diverse pathophysiological pathways, determines both a procoagulative state and systemic endothelial dysfunction, which are both deemed to be responsible for venous and arterial thromboembolic adverse events. The management of systemic thrombotic complications is particularly challenging in this category of patients, who also present a high bleeding risk; what is more, both bleeding and thrombotic risks peak during the active phases of the disease. The literature suggests that treating physicians have been, so far, more heavily influenced by concerns about bleeding than by the thrombotic risk. Despite the absence of data provided by large cohorts or randomized studies, the high risk of arterial and venous atherothrombosis in patients with IBD seems unquestionable. Moreover, several reports suggest that when arterial thromboembolism involves the coronary vessels, causing acute coronary syndromes, ischemic complications from antithrombotic drug undertreatment are frequent and severe. This review aims to shed light on the tricky balance between the ischemic and hemorrhagic risks of patients with IBD and to highlight how difficult it is for clinicians to define a tailored therapy based on a case-by-case, careful, and unprejudiced clinical evaluation.

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent evidences suggest a differential impact of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated DM on prognosis. We evaluated the clinical outcome of diabetic patients after PCI with polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent from the RUDI-FREE Registry, investigating a possible different prognostic impact of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated DM. A total of 1,104 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent, enrolled in the RUDI-FREE observational, multicenter, single-arm registry, were stratified by diabetic status; diabetic population was further divided on the basis of insulin treatment. Primary end points of the study were target lesion failure (TLF; composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (composite of cardiac death, stroke, and myocardial infarction). Multiple ischemic adverse events were also single-handedly considered as secondary end points. At 1 year, TLF was significantly higher in the diabetic cohort, as compared with nondiabetic patients (6.0% vs 3.1%, p 0.022). None of the end points resulted significantly different between nondiabetics and noninsulin-treated diabetic patients. Divergently, compared with nondiabetic, insulin-treated diabetic patients faced significant higher rates of TLF (10.8% vs 3.1%, p 0.003), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (10.8% vs 3.4%, p 0.004), and of most of the analyzed adverse events. In conclusion, patients with DM had a higher risk of TLF compared with nondiabetics; nonetheless, the worse outcome of the diabetic population seems to be driven by the insulin-treated diabetic subpopulation. This finding suggests a different risk profile of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated diabetic patients in the modern era of PCI.