Marco Valgimigli

2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Supplementary Table 9, column 'Edoxaban', row 'eGFR category', '95 mL/min' (page 15). The cell should be coloured green instead of yellow. It should also read mginstead of mg (use with caution in 'supranormal' renal function).In the above-indicated cell, a footnote has also been added to state: Edoxaban should be used in patients with high creatinine clearance only after a careful evaluation of the individual thromboembolic and bleeding risk.Supplementary Table 9, column 'Edoxaban', row 'Dose reduction in selected patients' (page 16). The cell should read Edoxaban 60 mg reduced to 30 mg once daily if any of the following: creatinine clearance 15-50 mL/min, body weight <60 kg, concomitant use of dronedarone, erythromycin, ciclosporine or ketokonazoleinstead of Edoxaban 60 mg reduced to 30 mg once daily, and edoxaban 30 mg reduced to 15mg once daily, if any of the following: creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/min, body weight <60 kg, concomitant us of verapamil or quinidine or dronedarone.

ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation : The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), principally ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, are the leading cause of global mortality and a major contributor to disability. This paper reviews the magnitude of total CVD burden, including 13 underlying causes of cardiovascular death and 9 related risk factors, using estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019. GBD, an ongoing multinational collaboration to provide comparable and consistent estimates of population health over time, used all available population-level data sources on incidence, prevalence, case fatality, mortality, and health risks to produce estimates for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Prevalent cases of total CVD nearly doubled from 271 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 257 to 285 million) in 1990 to 523 million (95% UI: 497 to 550 million) in 2019, and the number of CVD deaths steadily increased from 12.1 million (95% UI:11.4 to 12.6 million) in 1990, reaching 18.6 million (95% UI: 17.1 to 19.7 million) in 2019. The global trends for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years of life lost also increased significantly, and years lived with disability doubled from 17.7 million (95% UI: 12.9 to 22.5 million) to 34.4 million (95% UI:24.9 to 43.6 million) over that period. The total number of DALYs due to IHD has risen steadily since 1990, reaching 182 million (95% UI: 170 to 194 million) DALYs, 9.14 million (95% UI: 8.40 to 9.74 million) deaths in the year 2019, and 197 million (95% UI: 178 to 220 million) prevalent cases of IHD in 2019. The total number of DALYs due to stroke has risen steadily since 1990, reaching 143 million (95% UI: 133 to 153 million) DALYs, 6.55 million (95% UI: 6.00 to 7.02 million) deaths in the year 2019, and 101 million (95% UI: 93.2 to 111 million) prevalent cases of stroke in 2019. Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of disease burden in the world. CVD burden continues its decades-long rise for almost all countries outside high-income countries, and alarmingly, the age-standardized rate of CVD has begun to rise in some locations where it was previously declining in high-income countries. There is an urgent need to focus on implementing existing cost-effective policies and interventions if the world is to meet the targets for Sustainable Development Goal 3 and achieve a 30% reduction in premature mortality due to noncommunicable diseases.

ACE angiotensin-converting enzyme ACS acute coronary syndrome ADP adenosine diphosphate AF atrial fibrillation AMI acute myocardial infarction AV atrioventricular AIDA-4 Abciximab Intracoronary vs

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a pathological process characterized by atherosclerotic plaque accumulation in the epicardial arteries, whether obstructive or non-obstructive. This process can be modified by lifestyle adjustments, pharmacological therapies, and invasive interventions designed to achieve disease stabilization or regression. The disease can have long, stable periods but can also become unstable at any time, typically due to an acute atherothrombotic event caused by plaque rupture or erosion. However, the disease is chronic, most often progressive, and hence serious, even in clinically apparently silent periods. The dynamic nature of the CAD process results in various clinical presentations, which can be conveniently categorized as either acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). The Guidelines presented here refer to the management of patients with CCS. The natural history of CCS is illustrated in Figure 1.

99mTc : technetium-99m 201TI : thallium 201 ABCB1 : ATP-binding cassette sub-family B member 1 ABI : ankle-brachial index ACC : American College of Cardiology ACCF : American College of Cardiology Foundation ACCOMPLISH : Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension ACE : angiotensin converting enzyme ACIP : Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischaemia Pilot ACS : acute coronary syndrome ADA : American Diabetes Association ADP : adenosine diphosphate AHA : American Heart Association ARB : angiotensin II receptor antagonist ART : Arterial Revascularization Trial ASCOT : Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial ASSERT : Asymptomatic atrial fibrillation and Stroke Evaluation in pacemaker patients and the atrial fibrillation Reduction atrial pacing Trial AV : atrioventricular BARI 2D : Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes BEAUTIFUL : Morbidity-Mortality Evaluation of the If Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction BIMA : bilateral internal mammary artery BMI : body mass index BMS : bare metal stent BNP : B-type natriuretic peptide BP : blood pressure b.p.m. : beats per minute CABG : coronary artery bypass graft CAD : coronary artery disease CAPRIE : Clopidogrel vs. Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events CASS : Coronary Artery Surgery Study CCB : calcium channel blocker CCS : Canadian Cardiovascular Society CFR : coronary flow reserve CHARISMA : Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischaemic Stabilization, Management and Avoidance CI : confidence interval CKD : chronic kidney disease CKD-EPI : Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration CMR : cardiac magnetic resonance CORONARY : The CABG Off or On Pump Revascularization Study COURAGE : Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation COX-1 : cyclooxygenase-1 COX-2 : cyclooxygenase-2 CPG : Committee for Practice Guidelines CT : computed tomography CTA : computed tomography angiography CV : cardiovascular CVD : cardiovascular disease CXR : chest X-ray CYP2C19*2 : cytochrome P450 2C19 CYP3A : cytochrome P3A CYP3A4 : cytochrome P450 3A4 CYP450 : cytochrome P450 DANAMI : Danish trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction DAPT : dual antiplatelet therapy DBP : diastolic blood pressure DECOPI : Desobstruction Coronaire en Post-Infarctus DES : drug-eluting stents DHP : dihydropyridine DSE : dobutamine stress echocardiography EACTS : European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery EECP : enhanced external counterpulsation EMA : European Medicines Agency EASD : European Association for the Study of Diabetes ECG : electrocardiogram Echo : echocardiogram ED : erectile dysfunction EF : ejection fraction ESC : European Society of Cardiology EXCEL : Evaluation of XIENCE PRIME or XIENCE V vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization FAME : Fractional Flow Reserve vs. Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation FDA : Food & Drug Administration (USA) FFR : fractional flow reserve FREEDOM : Design of the Future Revascularization Evaluation in patients with Diabetes mellitus: Optimal management of Multivessel disease GFR : glomerular filtration rate HbA1c : glycated haemoglobin HDL : high density lipoprotein HDL-C : high density lipoprotein cholesterol HR : hazard ratio HRT : hormone replacement therapy hs-CRP : high-sensitivity C-reactive protein HU : Hounsfield units ICA : invasive coronary angiography IMA : internal mammary artery IONA : Impact Of Nicorandil in Angina ISCHEMIA : International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches IVUS : intravascular ultrasound JSAP : Japanese Stable Angina Pectoris KATP : ATP-sensitive potassium channels LAD : left anterior descending LBBB : left bundle branch block LIMA : Left internal mammary artery LDL : low density lipoprotein LDL-C : low density lipoprotein cholesterol LM : left main LMS : left main stem LV : left ventricular LVEF : left ventricular ejection fraction LVH : left ventricular hypertrophy MACE : major adverse cardiac events MASS : Medical, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study MDRD : Modification of Diet in Renal Disease MERLIN : Metabolic Efficiency with Ranolazine for Less Ischaemia in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes MERLIN-TIMI 36 : Metabolic Efficiency with Ranolazine for Less Ischemia in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction MET : metabolic equivalents MI : myocardial infarction MICRO-HOPE : Microalbuminuria, cardiovascular and renal sub-study of the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation study MPI : myocardial perfusion imaging MRI : magnetic resonance imaging NO : nitric oxide NSAIDs : non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs NSTE-ACS : non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome NYHA : New York Heart Association OAT : Occluded Artery Trial OCT : optical coherence tomography OMT : optimal medical therapy PAR-1 : protease activated receptor type 1 PCI : percutaneous coronary intervention PDE5 : phosphodiesterase type 5 PES : paclitaxel-eluting stents PET : positron emission tomography PRECOMBAT : Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery vs. Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients with Left Main Coronary Artery Disease PTP : pre-test probability PUFA : polyunsaturated fatty acid PVD : peripheral vascular disease QoL : quality of life RBBB : right bundle branch block REACH : Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health RITA-2 : Second Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina ROOBY : Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass SAPT : single antiplatelet therapy SBP : systolic blood pressure SCAD : stable coronary artery disease SCORE : Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation SCS : spinal cord stimulation SES : sirolimus-eluting stents SIMA : single internal mammary artery SPECT : single photon emission computed tomography STICH : Surgical Treatment for Ischaemic Heart Failure SWISSI II : Swiss Interventional Study on Silent Ischaemia Type II SYNTAX : SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery TC : total cholesterol TENS : transcutaneous electrical neural stimulation TERISA : Type 2 Diabetes Evaluation of Ranolazine in Subjects With Chronic Stable Angina TIME : Trial of Invasive vs. Medical therapy TIMI : Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction TMR : transmyocardial laser revascularization TOAT : The Open Artery Trial WOEST : What is the Optimal antiplatElet and anticoagulant therapy in patients with oral anticoagulation and coronary StenTing Guidelines summarize and evaluate all evidence available, at the time of the writing process, on a particular issue with the aim of assisting physicians in selecting the best management strategies for an individual patient with a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well …

HomeCirculationVol. 123, No. 23Standardized Bleeding Definitions for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissionsDownload Articles + Supplements ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toSupplementary MaterialsFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBStandardized Bleeding Definitions for Cardiovascular Clinical TrialsA Consensus Report From the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium Roxana Mehran, MD, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, C. Michael Gibson, MS, MD, Adriano Caixeta, MD, PhD, John Eikelboom, MD, MBBS, Sanjay Kaul, MD, Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, Venu Menon, MD, Eugenia Nikolsky, MD, PhD, Victor Serebruany, MD, PhD, Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, Pascal Vranckx, MD, David Taggart, MD, PhD, Joseph F. Sabik, MD, Donald E. Cutlip, MD, Mitchell W. Krucoff, MD, E. Magnus Ohman, MD, Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD and Harvey White, MB, ChB, DSc Roxana MehranRoxana Mehran The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Sunil V. RaoSunil V. Rao The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Deepak L. BhattDeepak L. Bhatt The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , C. Michael GibsonC. Michael Gibson The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Adriano CaixetaAdriano Caixeta The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , John EikelboomJohn Eikelboom The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Sanjay KaulSanjay Kaul The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Stephen D. WiviottStephen D. Wiviott The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Venu MenonVenu Menon The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Eugenia NikolskyEugenia Nikolsky The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Victor SerebruanyVictor Serebruany The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Marco ValgimigliMarco Valgimigli The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Pascal VranckxPascal Vranckx The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , David TaggartDavid Taggart The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Joseph F. SabikJoseph F. Sabik The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Donald E. CutlipDonald E. Cutlip The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Mitchell W. KrucoffMitchell W. Krucoff The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , E. Magnus OhmanE. Magnus Ohman The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author , Philippe Gabriel StegPhilippe Gabriel Steg The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author and Harvey WhiteHarvey White The BARC represents a collaboration of independent academic research organizations (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC; TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, MA; Green Lane Coordinating Centre, Auckland, New Zealand; Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH; and PERFUSE, Boston, MA), professional societies (European Society of Cardiology, and Society of Cardiac Angiography and Intervention), federal agencies (the US FDA, National Institutes of Health), and independent expert scientists and consultants (Appendix). Search for more papers by this author Originally published14 Jun 2011https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.009449Circulation. 2011;123:2736–2747Advances in antithrombotic therapy, along with an early invasive strategy, have reduced the incidence of recurrent ischemic events and death in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS; unstable angina, non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction [MI], and ST-segment–elevation MI).1–4 However, the combination of multiple pharmacotherapies, including aspirin, platelet P2Y12 inhibitors, heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, direct thrombin inhibitors, and the increasing use of invasive procedures, has also been associated with an increased risk of bleeding.Editorial see p 2664Bleeding complications have been associated with an increased risk of subsequent adverse outcomes, including MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and death, in patients with ACS and in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI),5–10 as well as in the long-term antithrombotic setting.11,12 Thus, balancing the anti-ischemic benefits against the bleeding risk of antithrombotic agents and interventions is of paramount importance in assessing new therapies and in managing patients. Prior randomized trials comparing antithrombotic agents suggest that a reduction in bleeding events is associated with improved survival.13,14Because prevention of major bleeding may represent an important step in improving outcomes by balancing safety and efficacy in the contemporary treatment of ACS, bleeding events have been systematically identified as a crucial end point for the assessment of the safety of drugs during the course of randomized clinical trials, and are an important aspect of the evaluation of new devices and interventional therapies.15 Unlike ischemic clinical events (eg, cardiac death, MI, stent thrombosis), for which there is now general consensus on end-point definitions,16,17 there is substantial heterogeneity among the many bleeding definitions currently in use. Lack of standardization makes it difficult to optimally organize key clinical trial processes such as adjudication, and even more difficult to interpret relative safety comparisons of different antithrombotic agents across studies, or even within a given trial, because results may vary according to the definition(s) used for bleeding. Finally, as reflected by the various terms used to describe bleeding (serious, severe, catastrophic, major, life-threatening, etc), the heterogeneity of definitions may undermine the ability of clinical trials to meaningfully define the balance of safety and efficacy in vascular interventions.In response to the need to develop, disseminate, and ultimately adopt standardized bleeding end-point definitions for patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) convened in February 2010 at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) headquarters in White Oak, MD. Modeled after the 2006 Academic Research Consortium, which standardized key ischemic end-point definitions in studies aimed at evaluating coronary stents,17 the BARC effort brought together representatives from academic research organizations, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, and pharmaceutical and cardiovascular device manufacturers and independent physician thought leaders in the field of cardiovascular disease to develop consensus bleeding definitions that would be useful for cardiovascular clinical trials. Application of these definitions is recommended for both clinical trials and registries.Importance of Bleeding as an End PointHemorrhagic complications occur with a frequency of 1% to 10% during treatment for ACS and after PCI.18–20 This wide variability in the measured incidence is due to several factors, including differences in patient characteristics, concomitant therapies, timing of event reporting, and definitions across data sets. Regardless of the definition used, several studies have demonstrated that bleeding is associated with an increased risk for short- and long-term adverse outcomes, including death,18,20 nonfatal MI,6 stroke,5 and stent thrombosis.9 The exact mechanisms underlying this relationship are not known, but may include the cessation of evidence-based therapies, including antiplatelet agents, β-blockers, and/or statin therapies, in patients who suffer bleeding complications,21,22 the direct effects of blood transfusion used to treat bleeding,20,23 or greater prevalence of comorbidities in patients who bleed,21 as well as a deleterious role of anemia.24The relationship between bleeding and morbidity and mortality is underscored by studies demonstrating that bleeding reduction strategies are associated with improved survival in patients with ACS and those undergoing PCI. The data summarized inTable 1 emphasize the importance of bleeding as a common, clinically relevant safety event. To optimize both the end point and its role in clinical trial designs, a consistent approach to collecting bleeding data and adjudicating events is critical.30 Toward this end, a thoughtful, broadly based consensus definition of what constitutes a bleeding event, similar to what has been done with MI and stent thrombosis, is the objective of BARC efforts.17Table 1. Impact of Major Bleeding on Mortality in Registries and Randomized Trials of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes or Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary InterventionsStudySetting, DesignPrimary Definition*PatientsPatients With Bleeding, n (%)Outcomes in Patients With Major or Severe Bleeding vs No BleedingEarly Deaths (In Hospital or at 30 d)Deaths up to 1 yDeath Rates, %Adjusted Risk Ratio for Death (95% CI)Death Rates, %Adjusted Risk Ratio for Death (95% CI)Kinnaird et al,7 2003PCI, registryTIMI10 974588 (5.4)7.5 vs 0.63.5 (1.9–6.7)17.2 vs 5.5Not significant†GRACE,10 2003ACS, registryGRACE24 045933 (3.9)18.6 vs 5.11.6 (1.2–2.3)……GRACE,21 2007ACS, registryGRACE40 0871140 (2.8)20.9 vs 5.61.9 (1.6–2.2)7.9 vs 5.20.8 (0.6–1.0)REPLACE-2,25 2007PCI, RCTREPLACE-2/ISAR-REACT 36001195 (3.2)5.1 vs 0.2…8.7 vs 1.92.7 (1.4–4.9)Rao et al,6 2005NSTE-ACS, meta-analysis of RCTsGUSTO26 452107 (0.4)25.7 vs 2.910.6 (8.3–13.6)35.1 vs 4.27.5 (6.1–9.3)Eikelboom et al,5 2006NSTE-ACS, meta-analysis of RCTs/registryCURE34 146783 (2.3)12.8 vs 2.59.8 (7.5–12.7)4.6 vs 2.9‡1.9 (1.3–2.8)ACUITY,9 2007NSTE-ACS, RCTACUITY13 819644 (4.7)7.3 vs 1.27.6 (4.7–12.2)…3.5 (2.7–4.4)Ndrepepa et al,15 2008PCI, meta-analysis of RCTsTIMI5384215 (4.0; n=59 major/n=156 minor)……12.2 vs 3.34.1 (2.1–8.3)EVENT,26 2009PCI, registryTIMI5961(3.0 overall: 0.7 major, 2.3 minor)……15.6 vs 2.43.8 (2.5–5.9)OASIS-5,27 2009NSTE-ACS, RCTESSENCE20 078990 (4.9): major, 423 (2.1) minor8.4 vs 2.73.5 (2.6–4.6)14.3 vs 5.43.1 (2.6–3.8)Amlani et al,28 2010STEMI, registryProtocol defined1389152 (10.9)19.7 vs 8.22.8 (1.8–4.3)……ISAR-REACT 3,29 2010PCI, RCTREPLACE-2/ISAR-REACT 34570555 (12.1) 174 major/381 minor……5.2 vs 1.34.1 (2.6–6.5)CI indicates confidence interval; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; TIMI, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; GRACE, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events; RCT, randomized controlled trial; REPLACE-2, Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events; ISAR-REACT 3, Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment; NSTE, non–ST-elevation; GUSTO, Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries; CURE, Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events; ACUITY, Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy; EVENT, Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events; and OASIS-5, Organization for the Assessment of Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes.*For Definitions, please seeTable 2.†Data not provided.‡Events between 30 days and 6 months.Bleeding Academic Research Consortium Composition and GoalsAn informal collaboration among academic research organizations from the United States and Europe, joined by representatives from the FDA and device manufacturers, led to a consensus document to standardize clinical end points for coronary stent trials.17 This Academic Research Consortium developed a rapid, scholarly, and clinically relevant process resulting in a portfolio of clinical end-point definitions that were endorsed by the FDA and broadly incorporated into clinical trial end points.31,32 The Academic Research Consortium process was a demonstration of effective collaboration among the academic community, FDA, and industry to respond to safety concerns over drug-eluting stents and to improve the conduct of clinical research. This initiative has since been expanded to other clinical domains, including percutaneous valves and peripheral arterial disease, and the effort to establish standardized bleeding definitions presented in this consensus document. These standardized definitions are intended to allow the clinical community to determine the relative safety of different antithrombotic strategies, to provide the industry with a framework in which to evaluate the safety of emerging antithrombotic therapies, and potentially to enhance the regulatory review of new anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs.Heterogeneity of Bleeding Definitions Across TrialsSeveral definitions of bleeding have been used in published clinical trials and registries.33–35Table 2 highlights the lack of uniformity in bleeding definitions among recent ACS and PCI clinical trials. Current bleeding definitions consist of both laboratory parameters, such as decreases in hemoglobin and hematocrit scores, and clinical events, including the need for transfusion or surgery, cardiac tamponade, hematomas, and various degrees of bleeding. Each definition incorporates a different combination of these data elements and then rank orders these combinations into severity categories, which vary widely between definitions.Table 2. Heterogeneity in Bleeding Definitions Used in Acute Coronary Syndrome TrialsTrialBleeding DefinitionTIMI6,37,38Non-CABG related bleeding Major Any intracranial bleeding (excluding microhemorrhages <10 mm evident only on gradient-echo MRI)Clinically overt signs of hemorrhage associated with a drop in hemoglobin of ≥5 g/dLFatal bleeding (bleeding that directly results in death within 7 d)Minor Clinically overt (including imaging), resulting in hemoglobin drop of 3 to <5 g/dLRequiring medical attention Any overt sign of hemorrhage that meets one of the following criteria and does not meet criteria for a major or minor bleeding event, as defined aboveRequiring intervention (medical practitioner-guided medical or surgical treatment to stop or treat bleeding, including temporarily or permanently discontinuing or changing the dose of a medication or study drug)Leading to or prolonging hospitalizationPrompting evaluation (leading to an unscheduled visit to a healthcare professional and diagnostic testing, either laboratory or imaging)Minimal Any overt bleeding event that does not meet the criteria aboveBleeding in the setting of CABG Fatal bleeding (bleeding that directly results in death)Perioperative intracranial bleedingReoperation after closure of the sternotomy incision for the purpose of controlling bleedingTransfusion of ≥5 U PRBCs or whole blood within a 48-h period; cell saver transfusion will not be counted in calculations of blood products.Chest tube output >2 L within a 24-h periodGUSTO24Severe or life-threatening Intracerebral hemorrhageResulting in substantial hemodynamic compromise requiring treatmentModerate Requiring blood transfusion but not resulting in hemodynamic compromiseMild Bleeding that does not meet above criteriaCURE5Major bleeding Life-threatening (fatal, intracranial, requiring surgical intervention, results in substantial hypotension requiring the use of intravenous inotropic agents) Hemoglobin decrease ≥5 g/dL or required ≥4 U of bloodOther major bleed

The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication.The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies.Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver.Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations.It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management.We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627.We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045).In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality.The Medicines Company and Terumo.

The long-term effects of treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, have not been established.We performed an analysis of individual data on 4958 patients enrolled in 14 randomized trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents (mean follow-up interval, 12.1 to 58.9 months). The primary end point was death from any cause. Other outcomes were stent thrombosis, the composite end point of death or myocardial infarction, and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or reintervention.The overall risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.30) and the combined risk of death or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.16) were not significantly different for patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents. There was a significant reduction in the combined risk of death, myocardial infarction, or reintervention (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.54) associated with the use of sirolimus-eluting stents. There was no significant difference in the overall risk of stent thrombosis with sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.86). However, there was evidence of a slight increase in the risk of stent thrombosis associated with sirolimus-eluting stents after the first year.The use of sirolimus-eluting stents does not have a significant effect on overall long-term survival and survival free of myocardial infarction, as compared with bare-metal stents. There is a sustained reduction in the need for reintervention after the use of sirolimus-eluting stents. The risk of stent thrombosis is at least as great as that seen with bare-metal stents.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor prevents ischaemic events after coronary stenting, but increases bleeding. Guidelines support weighting bleeding risk before the selection of treatment duration, but no standardised tool exists for this purpose.A total of 14 963 patients treated with DAPT after coronary stenting-largely consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel and without indication to oral anticoagulation-were pooled at a single-patient level from eight multicentre randomised clinical trials with independent adjudication of events. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we identified predictors of out-of-hospital Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding stratified by trial, and developed a numerical bleeding risk score. The predictive performance of the novel score was assessed in the derivation cohort and validated in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial (n=8595) and BernPCI registry (n=6172). The novel score was assessed within patients randomised to different DAPT durations (n=10 081) to identify the effect on bleeding and ischaemia of a long (12-24 months) or short (3-6 months) treatment in relation to baseline bleeding risk.The PRECISE-DAPT score (age, creatinine clearance, haemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, and previous spontaneous bleeding) showed a c-index for out-of-hospital TIMI major or minor bleeding of 0·73 (95% CI 0·61-0·85) in the derivation cohort, and 0·70 (0·65-0·74) in the PLATO trial validation cohort and 0·66 (0·61-0·71) in the BernPCI registry validation cohort. A longer DAPT duration significantly increased bleeding in patients at high risk (score ≥25), but not in those with lower risk profiles (pinteraction=0·007), and exerted a significant ischaemic benefit only in this latter group.The PRECISE-DAPT score is a simple five-item risk score, which provides a standardised tool for the prediction of out-of-hospital bleeding during DAPT. In the context of a comprehensive clinical evaluation process, this tool can support clinical decision making for treatment duration.None.

Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated–receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation.

The optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy and the risk-benefit ratio for long-term dual-antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting remain poorly defined. We evaluated the impact of up to 6 versus 24 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy in a broad all-comers patient population receiving a balanced proportion of Food and Drug Administration-approved drug-eluting or bare-metal stents.We randomly assigned 2013 patients to receive bare-metal, zotarolimus-eluting, paclitaxel-eluting, or everolimus-eluting stent implantation. At 30 days, patients in each stent group were randomly allocated to receive up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy in addition to aspirin. The primary end point was a composite of death of any cause, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident. The cumulative risk of the primary outcome at 2 years was 10.1% with 24-month dual-antiplatelet therapy compared with 10.0% with 6-month dual-antiplatelet therapy (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.29; P=0.91). The individual risks of death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, or stent thrombosis did not differ between the study groups; however, there was a consistently greater risk of hemorrhage in the 24-month clopidogrel group according to all prespecified bleeding definitions, including the recently proposed Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification.A regimen of 24 months of clopidogrel therapy in patients who had received a balanced mixture of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents was not significantly more effective than a 6-month clopidogrel regimen in reducing the composite of death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident.URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00611286.

Background We hypothesised that ticagrelor, in combination with aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor alone, improves outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention compared with standard antiplatelet regimens. Methods GLOBAL LEADERS was a randomised, open-label superiority trial at 130 sites in 18 countries. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a biolimus A9-eluting stent for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned (1:1) to 75–100 mg aspirin daily plus 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily for 1 month, followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy, or standard dual antiplatelet therapy with 75–100 mg aspirin daily plus either 75 mg clopidogrel daily (for patients with stable coronary artery disease) or 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily (for patients with acute coronary syndromes) for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months. Randomisation was concealed, stratified by centre and clinical presentation (stable coronary artery disease vs acute coronary syndrome), and blocked, with randomly varied block sizes of two and four. The primary endpoint at 2 years was a composite of all-cause mortality or non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction as assessed by a core lab in a blinded manner. The key secondary safety endpoint was site-reported bleeding assessed according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria (grade 3 or 5). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01813435, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed. Findings Between July 1, 2013, and Nov 9, 2015, 15 968 participants were randomly assigned, 7980 to the experimental group and 7988 to the control group. At 2 years, 304 (3·81%) participants in the experimental group had died or had a non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction, compared with 349 (4·37%) participants in the control group (rate ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·75–1·01]; p=0·073]). There was no evidence for a difference in treatment effects for the primary endpoint across prespecified subgroups of acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery disease (p=0·93). Grade 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in 163 participants in the experimental group and 169 in the control group (2·04% vs 2·12%; rate ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·78–1·20]; p=0·77). Interpretation Ticagrelor in combination with aspirin for 1 month followed by ticagrelor alone for 23 months was not superior to 12 months of standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by 12 months of aspirin alone in the prevention of all-cause mortality or new Q-wave myocardial infarction 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention. Funding AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and The Medicines Company.

We aimed to assess the safety of edoxaban in combination with P2Y12 inhibition in patients with atrial fibrillation who had percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).ENTRUST-AF PCI was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3b trial with masked outcome evaluation, done at 186 sites in 18 countries. Patients had atrial fibrillation requiring oral anticoagulation, were aged at least 18 years, and had a successful PCI for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) from 4 h to 5 days after PCI using concealed, stratified, and blocked web-based central randomisation to either edoxaban (60 mg once daily) plus a P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in combination with a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin (100 mg once daily, for 1-12 months). The edoxaban dose was reduced to 30 mg per day if one or more factors (creatinine clearance 15-50 mL/min, bodyweight ≤60 kg, or concomitant use of specified potent P-glycoprotein inhibitors) were present. The primary endpoint was a composite of major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding within 12 months. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02866175, is closed to new participants, and follow-up is completed.From Feb 24, 2017, through May 7, 2018, 1506 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the edoxaban regimen (n=751) or VKA regimen (n=755). Median time from PCI to randomisation was 45·1 h (IQR 22·2-76·2). Major or CRNM bleeding events occurred in 128 (17%) of 751 patients (annualised event rate 20·7%) with the edoxaban regimen and 152 (20%) of 755 patients (annualised event rate 25·6%) patients with the VKA regimen; hazard ratio 0·83 (95% CI 0·65-1·05; p=0·0010 for non-inferiority, margin hazard ratio 1·20; p=0·1154 for superiority).In patients with atrial fibrillation who had PCI, the edoxaban-based regimen was non-inferior for bleeding compared with the VKA-based regimen, without significant differences in ischaemic events.Daiichi Sankyo.

This study was designed to define the current role of multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) using a meta-analytic process.Multislice spiral computed tomography has recently been proposed as an alternative to conventional coronary angiography (CA) for the diagnosis of CAD.Using Medline, we identified 29 studies (2,024 patients) evaluating CAD by means of both MSCT (> or =16 slices) and conventional CA before July 2006. After data extraction the analysis was performed according to a random-effects model.The per-segment analysis pooled the results from 27 studies corresponding to a cumulative number of 22,798 segments. Among unassessable segments, 4.2% were excluded from the analysis and 6.4% were classified at the discretion of the investigators, underscoring the shortcomings of MSCT. With this major limitation, the per-segment sensitivity and specificity were 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72% to 89%) and 93% (95% CI 90% to 97%), respectively, with positive and negative likelihood ratios of 21.5 (95% CI 13.1 to 35.5) and 0.11 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.21), respectively, and positive and negative predictive values of 67.8% (95% CI 57.6% to 78.0%) and 96.5% (95% CI 94.7% to 98.3%), respectively. As expected, the per-patient analysis has shown an increased sensitivity of 96% (95% CI 94% to 98%) but a decreased specificity of 74% (95% CI 65% to 84%).Multislice spiral computed tomography has shortcomings difficult to overcome in daily practice and, at the more clinically relevant per-patient analysis, continues to have moderate specificity in patients with high prevalence of CAD. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of the newest generation of MSCT, including patients with low to moderate CAD prevalence, will be critical in establishing the clinical role of this emerging technology as an alternative to CA.

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention–related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) reduces the risk of restenosis in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the use of drug-eluting stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is still controversial. Data regarding the performance of second-generation EES in this setting are scarce. We report the 1-year result of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) trial, comparing EES with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with STEMI.This multicentre, prospective, randomised, all-comer controlled trial was done in 12 medical centres in three countries. Between Dec 31, 2008, and May 15, 2010, we recruited patients with STEMI up to 48 h after the onset of symptoms requiring emergent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly assigned (ratio 1:1) to receive EES or BMS. Randomisation was in blocks of four or six patients, stratified by centre and centralised by telephone. Patients were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was the patient-oriented combined endpoint of all-cause death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, and any revascularisation at 1 year and was analysed by intention to treat. The secondary endpoints of the study included the device-oriented combined endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation, and rates of all cause or cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion or target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, device and procedure success, and major and minor bleeding. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087.Of the 1504 patients randomised, 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). The primary endpoint was similar in both groups (89 [11·9%] of 751 patients in the EES group vs 106 [14·2%] of 747 patients in the BMS group; difference -2·34 [95% CI -5·75 to 1·07]; p=0·19). Device-oriented endpoint (44 [5·9%] in the EES group vs 63 [8·4%] in the BMS group; difference -2·57 [95% CI -5·18 to 0·03]; p=0·05) did not differ between groups, although rates of target lesion and vessel revascularisation were significantly lower in the EES group (16 [2·1%] vs 37 [5·0%], p=0·003, and 28 [3·7%] vs 51 [6·8%], p=0·0077, respectively). Rates of all cause (26 [3·5%] for EES vs 26 [3·5%] for BMS, p=1·00) or cardiac death (24 [3·2%] for EES vs 21 [2·8%] for BMS, p=0·76) or myocardial infarction (10 [1·3%] vs 15 [2·0%], p=0·32) did not differ between groups. Stent thrombosis rates were significantly lower in the EES group (4 [0·5%] patients with definite stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 14 [1·9%] in the BMS group and seven [0·9%] patients with definite or probable stent thrombosis in the EES group vs 19 [2·5%] in the BMS group, both p=0·019). Although device success rate was similar between groups, procedure success rate was significantly higher in the EES group (731 [97·5%] vs 705 [94·6%]; p=0·0050). Finally, Bleeding rates at 1 year were comparable between groups (29 [3·9%] patients in the EES group vs 39 [5·2%] in the BMS group; p=0·19).The use of EES compared with BMS in the setting of STEMI did not lower the patient-oriented endpoint. However, at the stent level both rates of target lesion revascularisation and stent thrombosis were reduced in recipients of EES.Spanish Heart Foundation.

Previous meta-analyses have investigated the relative safety and efficacy profiles of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); however, most prior trials in these meta-analyses reported follow-up to only 1 year, and as such, the relative long-term safety and efficacy of these devices are unknown. Many recent studies have now reported extended follow-up data.This study sought to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of durable polymer-based DES, bioabsorbable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents (BES), and BMS by means of network meta-analysis.Randomized controlled trials comparing DES to each other or to BMS were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted.Fifty-one trials that included a total of 52,158 randomized patients with follow-up duration ≥3 years were analyzed. At a median follow-up of 3.8 years, cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were associated with lower rates of mortality, definite stent thrombosis (ST), and myocardial infarction than BMS, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and less ST than BES. Phosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stents had lower rates of definite ST than SES and lower rates of myocardial infarction than BMS and PES. The late rates of target-vessel revascularization were reduced with all DES compared with BMS, with cobalt-chromium EES, platinum chromium-EES, SES, and BES also having lower target-vessel revascularization rates than PES.After a median follow-up of 3.8 years, all DES demonstrated superior efficacy compared with BMS. Among DES, second-generation devices have substantially improved long-term safety and efficacy outcomes compared with first-generation devices.

The purpose of the study was to systematically evaluate the significance of platelet reactivity on clopidogrel treatment on adverse cardiovascular events using a collaborative meta-analysis using patient-level data for the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay (Accumetrics, San Diego, California).Clinical evidence has been controversial regarding the influence of clopidogrel on treatment platelet reactivity and ischemic outcomes.MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library databases were searched through January 2010. A database containing individual patient-level time-to-event data was generated from identified studies. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stent thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of: 1) death; 2) MI; and 3) stent thrombosis.A total of 6 studies with 3,059 patients was included. In each study, clopidogrel responsiveness was assessed using the same point-of-care assay after percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint occurred more frequently in higher quartiles of P2Y(12) reaction unit (PRU) values: quartile I, 5.8%; quartile II, 6.9%; quartile III, 10.9%; quartile IV, 15.8% (p < 0.001). Taking quartile I as referent, the hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary endpoint were as follows: quartile II, HR: 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 1.78; p = 0.60); quartile III, HR: 1.82 (95% CI: 1.20 to 2.75; p = 0.005); quartile IV, HR: 2.62 (95% CI: 1.78 to 3.87; p < 0.001). On a continuous scale, every 10-U increase in PRU was associated with a significantly higher rate of the primary endpoint (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.06; p < 0.0001). According to receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, a PRU value of 230 appeared to best predict death, MI, or stent thrombosis (p < 0.001). A PRU value ≥230 was associated with a higher rate of the composite primary endpoint (HR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.62 to 2.73; p < 0.0001), as well as the individual endpoints of death (HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.68; p = 0.04), MI (HR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.51 to 2.76; p < 0.001), and stent thrombosis (HR: 3.11; 95% CI: 1.50 to 6.46; p = 0.002).In this collaborative meta-analysis, the level of on-treatment platelet reactivity according to the P2Y(12) assay is associated with long-term cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention, including death, MI, and stent thrombosis.

The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative appraisal of the effects on clinical outcomes of radial access for coronary interventions in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Randomized trials investigating radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary interventions have provided conflicting evidence. No comprehensive quantitative appraisal of the risks and benefits of each approach is available across the whole spectrum of patients with stable or unstable CAD. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effects or a random-effects model, as appropriate. Pre-specified subgroup analyses according to clinical presentation, in terms of stable CAD, non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were performed. Twenty-four studies enrolling 22,843 participants were included. Compared with femoral access, radial access was associated with a significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.87; p = 0.001, number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] = 160), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.94; p = 0.002; NNTB = 99), major bleeding (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.65; p < 0.001; NNTB = 103), and major vascular complications (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.35; p < 0.001; NNTB = 117). The rates of myocardial infarction or stroke were similar in the 2 groups. Effects of radial access were consistent across the whole spectrum of patients with CAD for all appraised endpoints. Compared with femoral access, radial access reduces mortality and MACE and improves safety, with reductions in major bleeding and vascular complications across the whole spectrum of patients with CAD.

Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is the standard treatment for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The availability of different P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) with varying levels of potency has enabled physicians to contemplate individualized treatment regimens, which may include escalation or de-escalation of P2Y12-inhibiting therapy. Indeed, individualized and alternative DAPT strategies may be chosen according to the clinical setting (stable coronary artery disease vs. acute coronary syndrome), the stage of the disease (early- vs. long-term treatment), and patient risk for ischemic and bleeding complications. A tailored DAPT approach may be potentially guided by platelet function testing (PFT) or genetic testing. Although the routine use of PFT or genetic testing in percutaneous coronary intervention-treated patients is not recommended, recent data have led to an update in guideline recommendations that allow considering selective use of PFT for DAPT de-escalation. However, guidelines do not expand on when to implement the selective use of such assays into decision making for personalized treatment approaches. Therefore, an international expert consensus group of key leaders from North America, Asia, and Europe with expertise in the field of antiplatelet treatment was convened. This document updates 2 prior consensus papers on this topic and summarizes the contemporary updated expert consensus recommendations for the selective use of PFT or genotyping in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-derived thin-cap fibroatheroma (IDTCFA) and its relationship with the clinical presentation using spectral analysis of IVUS radiofrequency data (IVUS-Virtual Histology [IVUS-VH]). Thin-cap fibroatheroma lesions are the most prevalent substrate of plaque rupture. In 55 patients, a non-culprit, non-obstructive (<50%) lesion was investigated with IVUS-VH. We classified IDTCFA lesions as focal, necrotic core-rich (≥10% of the cross-sectional area) plaques being in contact with the lumen; IDTCFA definition required a percent atheroma volume (PAV) ≥40%. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n = 23) patients presented a significantly higher prevalence of IDTCFA than stable (n = 32) patients (3.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.0 to 5.0] vs. 1.0 [IQR 0.0 to 2.8], p = 0.018). No relation was found between patient’s characteristics such as gender (p = 0.917), diabetes (p = 0.217), smoking (p = 0.904), hypercholesterolemia (p = 0.663), hypertension (p = 0.251), or family history of coronary heart disease (p = 0.136) and the presence of IDTCFA. A clear clustering pattern was seen along the coronaries, with 35 (35.4%), 31 (31.3%), 19 (19.2%), and 14 (14.1%) IDTCFAs in the first 10 mm, 11 to 20 mm, 21 to 30 mm, and ≥31 mm segments, respectively, p = 0.008. Finally, we compared the severity (mean PAV 56.9 ± 7.4 vs. 54.8 ± 6.0, p = 0.343) and the composition (mean percent necrotic core 19.7 ± 4.1 vs. 18.1 ± 3.0, p = 0.205) of IDTCFAs between stable and ACS patients, and no significant differences were found. In this in vivo study, IVUS-VH identified IDTCFA as a more prevalent finding in ACS than in stable angina patients.

Background— Peripheral blood CD34 + cells and circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) increase in myocardial infarction and vascular injuries as a reflection of endothelial damage. Despite the occurrence of endothelial dysfunction in heart failure (HF), no data are available on EPC mobilization in this setting. We investigated the pattern of CD34 + cells and EPC mobilization during HF and their correlation with the severity and origin of the disease. Methods and Results— Peripheral blood CD34 + cells (n=91) and EPCs (n=41), assessed both as CD34 + cells coexpressing AC133 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor-2 and as endothelial colony-forming units, were studied in HF patients (mean age 67±11 years) and 45 gender- and age-matched controls. Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and its receptors (sTNFR-1 and sTNFR-2), VEGF, stromal derived factor-1 (SDF-1), granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), and B-type natriuretic peptide were also measured. CD34 + cells, EPCs, TNF-α and receptors, VEGF, SDF-1, and B-type natriuretic peptide were increased in HF. CD34 + cells and EPCs were inversely related to functional class and to TNF-α, being decreased in New York Heart Association class IV compared with class I and II and controls. No role was found for the origin of the disease. Conclusions— CD34 + cells and EPC mobilization occurs in HF and shows a biphasic response, with elevation and depression in the early and advanced phases, respectively. This could be related to the myelosuppressive role of TNF-α.

Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear.We randomly assigned 1644 patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (with aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily for the first 3 months) (rivaroxaban group) or aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily (with clopidogrel at a dose of 75 mg daily for the first 3 months) (antiplatelet group). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death or thromboembolic events. The primary safety outcome was major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding. The trial was terminated prematurely by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns.After a median of 17 months, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (incidence rates, 9.8 and 7.2 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio with rivaroxaban, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.81; P = 0.04). Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (4.3 and 2.8 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = 0.08). A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (5.8 and 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.53).In patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than an antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; GALILEO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02556203.).

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

The impact of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention for left main (LM) coronary disease is largely unknown.From April 2001 to December 2003, 181 patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for LM stenosis at our institution. The first cohort consisted of 86 patients (19 protected LM) treated with bare metal stents (pre-DES group); the second cohort comprised 95 patients (15 protected LM) treated exclusively with DES. The 2 cohorts were well balanced for all baseline characteristics. At a median follow-up of 503 days (range, 331 to 873 days), the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was lower in the DES cohort than in patients in the pre-DES group (24% versus 45%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.88]; P=0.01). Total mortality did not differ between cohorts; however, there were significantly lower rates of both myocardial infarction (4% versus 12%, respectively; HR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.65]; P=0.006) and target vessel revascularization (6% versus 23%, respectively; HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.65]; P=0.004) in the DES group. On multivariate analysis, use of DES, Parsonnet classification, troponin elevation at entry, distal LM location, and reference vessel diameter were independent predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events.When percutaneous coronary intervention is undertaken at LM lesions, routine DES implantation, which reduces the cumulative incidence of myocardial infarction and the need for target vessel revascularization compared with bare metal stents, should currently be the preferred strategy.

Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome.We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events.The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34).In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627.).

Optimal upfront dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) remains unclear. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of long-term (≥12 months) versus short-term (3 or 6 months) DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel according to PCI complexity. The authors pooled patient-level data from 6 randomized controlled trials investigating DAPT durations after PCI. Complex PCI was defined as having at least 1 of the following features: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or chronic total occlusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Intention-to-treat was the primary analytic approach. Of 9,577 patients included in the pooled dataset for whom procedural variables were available, 1,680 (17.5%) underwent complex PCI. Overall, 85% of patients received new-generation DES. At a median follow-up time of 392 days (interquartile range: 366 to 710 days), patients who underwent complex PCI had a higher risk of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50 to 2.60; p < 0.0001). Compared with short-term DAPT, long-term DAPT yielded significant reductions in MACE in the complex PCI group (adjusted HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.89) versus the noncomplex PCI group (adjusted HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.35; pinteraction = 0.01). The magnitude of the benefit with long-term DAPT was progressively greater per increase in procedural complexity. Long-term DAPT was associated with increased risk for major bleeding, which was similar between groups (pinteraction = 0.96). Results were consistent by per-treatment landmark analysis. Alongside other established clinical risk factors, procedural complexity is an important parameter to take into account in tailoring upfront duration of DAPT.

This study sought to investigate the evolving pattern over time of on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (PR) and its relationship with genotype and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention.Whether on-clopidogrel PR and role of genotype differ over time is unknown.On-clopidogrel PR before percutaneous coronary intervention, and 1 and 6 months thereafter via VerifyNow P2Y12 (Accumetrics Inc., San Diego, California), CYP2C19*2, *17, CYP3A5*3, and ABCB1 polymorphisms were evaluated in 300 patients. Death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and bleedings were assessed up to 1 year.On-clopidogrel PR varied significantly over time, being higher at baseline than at 1 and 6 months after. From baseline to 1 month, 83 of 300 patients varied their response status. This was mainly due to baseline poor responders becoming full responders (75 of 83). Genotype justifies roughly 18% of this trend. CYP2C19*2 and *17 influence on PR was consistent over time, whereas that of ABCB1 appeared of greater impact at baseline. On-clopidogrel PR at 1 month independently best predicts ischemic and bleeding events. We found a therapeutic window (86 to 238 P2Y₁₂ reactivity units) with a lower incidence of both ischemic and bleeding complications. A risk score was created by combining genotype (ABCB1 and CYP2C19*2), baseline PR, and creatinine clearance to predict 1-month poor responsiveness and 1-year poor prognosis.In patients at steady state for clopidogrel undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, PR decreases from baseline to 1 month. Genotype influences ≈18% of this trend. On-clopidogrel PR at 1 month is the strongest predictor of adverse outcomes, and this can be predicted by combining genotype to baseline phenotype and clinical variables.

To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease.Bayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation.A strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease.Medline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation.All cause mortality.100 trials in 93,553 patients with 262,090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment.Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

Bare-metal stenting with abciximab pretreatment is currently considered a reasonable reperfusion strategy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Sirolimus-eluting stents significantly reduce the need for target-vessel revascularization (TVR) vs bare-metal stents but substantially increase procedural costs. At current European list prices, the use of tirofiban instead of abciximab would absorb the difference in cost between stenting with sirolimus-eluting vs bare-metal stents.To evaluate the clinical and angiographic impact of single high-dose bolus tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stenting vs abciximab plus bare-metal stenting in patients with STEMI.Prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study (Single High Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus Eluting Stent vs Abciximab and Bare Metal Stent in Myocardial Infarction [STRATEGY]) of 175 patients (median age, 63 [interquartile range, 55-72] years) presenting to a single referral center in Italy with STEMI or presumed new left bundle-branch block and randomized between March 6, 2003, and April 23, 2004.Single high-dose bolus tirofiban regimen plus sirolimus-eluting stenting (n = 87) vs standard-dose abciximab plus bare-metal stenting (n = 88).The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or binary restenosis at 8 months. Secondary outcomes included freedom, at day 30 and month 8, from major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events (composite of death, reinfarction, stroke, and repeat TVR).Cumulatively, 14 of 74 patients (19%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-28%) in the tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stent group and 37 of 74 patients (50%; 95% CI, 44%-56%) in the abciximab plus bare-metal stent group reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.60; P<.001 [P<.001 by Fischer exact test]). The cumulative incidence of death, reinfarction, stroke, or TVR was significantly lower in the tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stent group (18%) vs the abciximab plus bare-metal stent group (32%) (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28-0.92; P = .04), predominantly reflecting a reduction in the need for TVR. Binary restenosis was present in 6 of 67 (9%; 95% CI, 2%-16%) and 24 of 66 (36%; 95% CI, 26%-46%) patients in the tirofiban plus sirolimus-eluting stent and abciximab plus bare-metal stent groups, respectively (P = .002).Tirofiban-supported sirolimus-eluting stenting of infarcted arteries holds promise for improving outcomes while limiting health care expenditure in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing primary intervention.

The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication.The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies.Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver.Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations.It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

Although platelet reactivity during P2Y12-inhibitors is associated with stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding, standardized and clinically validated thresholds for accurate risk stratification after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are lacking. We sought to determine the prognostic value of low platelet reactivity (LPR), optimal platelet reactivity (OPR), or high platelet reactivity (HPR) by applying uniform cut-off values for standardized devices.Authors of studies published before January 2015, reporting associations between platelet reactivity, ST, and major bleeding were contacted for a collaborative analysis using consensus-defined, uniform cut-offs for standardized platelet function assays. Based on best available evidence for each device (exploratory studies), LPR-OPR-HPR categories were defined as <95, 95-208, and >208 PRU for VerifyNow, <19, 19-46, and >46 U for the Multiplate analyser and <16, 16-50, and >50% for VASP assay. Seventeen studies including 20 839 patients were used for the analysis; 97% were treated with clopidogrel and 3% with prasugrel. Patients with HPR had significantly higher risk for ST [risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI: 2.73 (2.03-3.69), P < 0.00001], yet a slight reduction in bleeding [RR: 0.84 (0.71-0.99), P = 0.04] compared with those with OPR. In contrast, patients with LPR had a higher risk for bleeding [RR: 1.74 (1.47-2.06), P < 0.00001], without any further benefit in ST [RR: 1.06 (0.68-1.65), P = 0.78] in contrast to OPR. Mortality was significantly higher in patients with HPR compared with other categories (P < 0.05). Validation cohorts (n = 14) confirmed all results of exploratory studies (n = 3).Platelet reactivity assessment during thienopyridine-type P2Y12-inhibitors identifies PCI-treated patients at higher risk for mortality and ST (HPR) or at an elevated risk for bleeding (LPR).

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is the treatment of choice for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndromes and for those undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. The availability of different oral P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) has enabled physicians to contemplate switching among therapies because of specific clinical scenarios. The recent introduction of an intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor (cangrelor) further adds to the multitude of modalities and settings in which switching therapies may occur. In clinical practice, it is not uncommon to switch P2Y12 inhibitor, and switching may be attributed to a variety of factors. However, concerns about the safety of switching between these agents have emerged. Practice guidelines have not fully elaborated on how to switch therapies, leaving clinicians with limited guidance on when and how to switch therapies when needed. This prompted the development of this expert consensus document by key leaders from North America and Europe with expertise in basic, translational, and clinical sciences in the field of antiplatelet therapy. This expert consensus provides an overview of the pharmacology of P2Y12 inhibitors, different modalities and definitions of switching, and available literature and recommendations for switching between P2Y12 inhibitors.

To assess the benefits and risks of short term (<12 months) or extended (>12 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) versus standard 12 month therapy, following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stents.Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and major congress proceedings, searched from 1 January 2002 to 16 February 2015.Trials comparing short term (<12 months) or extended (>12 months) DAPT regimens with standard 12 month duration of therapy. Primary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and all cause mortality.10 randomised controlled trials (n=32,287) were included. Compared to 12 month DAPT, a short term course of therapy was associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding (odds ratio 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.92); P=0.02) with no significant differences in ischaemic or thrombotic outcomes. Extended versus 12 month DAPT yielded a significant reduction in the odds of myocardial infarction (0.53 (0.42 to 0.66); P<0.001) and stent thrombosis (0.33 (0.21 to 0.51); P<0.001), but more major bleeding (1.62 (1.26 to 2.09); P<0.001). All cause but not cardiovascular death was also significantly increased (1.30 (1.02 to 1.66); P=0.03).Compared with a standard 12 month duration, short term DAPT (<12 months) after drug eluting stent implementation yields reduced bleeding with no apparent increase in ischaemic complications, and could be considered for most patients. In selected patients with low bleeding risk and very high ischaemic risk, extended DAPT (>12 months) could be considered. The increase in all cause but not cardiovascular death with extended DAPT requires further investigation.

The Syntax score (SXscore) was recently developed as a comprehensive angiographic scoring system aiming to assist in patient selection and risk stratification of patients with extensive coronary artery disease undergoing contemporary revascularization. A validation of this angiographic classification scheme is lacking. We assessed its predictive value in patients who underwent percutaneous intervention (PCI) for 3-vessel disease and explored its performance in comparison with the modified lesion classification system of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology. The SXscore, applied to 1,292 lesions in 306 patients who underwent PCI for 3-vessel disease in the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study Part II, was 4 to 54.5, and after a median of 370 days (range 274 to 400) predicted the rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio 1.08/U increase, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.11, p <0.0001), with patients in the highest SXscore tertile having a significantly higher event rate (27.9%) than patients in the lowest tertile (8.7%, hazard ratio 3.5, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 7.4, p=0.001). By multivariable analyses, SXscore independently predicted outcome with an almost fourfold adjusted increase in the risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in patients with high versus low values based on the discrimination level provided by classification and regression tree analysis. Compared with the modified lesion classification scheme of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, SXscore showed a greater discrimination ability (c-index 0.58 ± 0.08 vs 0.67 ± 0.08, respectively, p <0.001) and a better goodness of fit with the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. In conclusion, the SXscore is a promising tool to risk stratify outcome in patients with extensive coronary artery disease undergoing contemporary PCI.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment aimed at preventing the atherothrombotic complications in patients with a variety of coronary artery disease (CAD) manifestations. Prescribers of DAPT are confronted with a number of challenges that include selecting the appropriate P2Y12 inhibitor and determining the optimal duration of DAPT with the scope of minimizing the risk of ischemic and bleeding complications in light of each patient’s clinical characteristic and circumstance. Recently, a guideline writing committee from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and a task force from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) released their respective focused update recommendations on “Duration of DAPT in Patients with CAD” (ACC/AHA) and “DAPT in CAD” (ESC). This paper aims to review the ACC/AHA and ESC updates for DAPT to delineate common domains, consistent messages, and differences in recommended management strategies across the Atlantic.

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; P<0.001 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; P<0.001 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.).

Abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation is a complementary treatment strategy to reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It is uncertain whether there may be similar benefits in replacing abciximab with high-dose bolus tirofiban. Similarly, the use of drug-eluting stents in this patient population is currently discouraged because of conflicting results on efficacy reported in randomized trials and safety concerns reported by registries.To evaluate the effect of high-dose bolus tirofiban and of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared with abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.An open-label, 2 x 2 factorial trial of 745 patients presenting with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block at 16 referral centers in Italy, Spain, and Argentina between October 2004 and April 2007.High-dose bolus tirofiban vs abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting stent vs uncoated stent implantation.For drug comparison, at least 50% ST-segment elevation resolution at 90 minutes postintervention with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 9% difference (relative risk, 0.89); for stent comparison, the rate of major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction, and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization within 8 months.ST-segment resolution occurred in 302 of 361 patients (83.6%) who had received abciximab infusion and 308 of 361 (85.3%) who had received tirofiban infusion (relative risk, 1.020; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.958-1.086; P < .001 for noninferiority). Ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes were similar in the tirofiban and abciximab groups. At 8 months, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 54 patients (14.5%) with uncoated stents and 29 (7.8%) with sirolimus stents (P = .004), predominantly reflecting a reduction of revascularization rates (10.2% vs 3.2%). The incidence of stent thrombosis was similar in the 2 stent groups.In patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with abciximab, tirofiban therapy was associated with noninferior resolution of ST-segment elevation at 90 minutes following coronary intervention, whereas sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events than uncoated stents within 8 months after intervention.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00229515.

Abstract The presence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of medical conditions; however, the subject remains controversial and no official statements have been published. This interdisciplinary paper, prepared with involvement of eight European scientific societies, aims to review the available trial evidence and to define the principles needed to guide decision making in patients with PFO. In order to guarantee a strict process, position statements were developed with the use of a modified grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A critical qualitative and quantitative evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk/benefit ratio. The level of evidence and the strength of the position statements of particular management options were weighed and graded according to predefined scales. Despite being based often on limited and non-randomised data, while waiting for more conclusive evidence, it was possible to conclude on a number of position statements regarding a rational general approach to PFO management and to specific considerations regarding left circulation thromboembolism. For some therapeutic aspects, it was possible to express stricter position statements based on randomised trials. This position paper provides the first largely shared, interdisciplinary approach for a rational PFO management based on the best available evidence.

Recent trials have examined the effect of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in a variety of patient populations, with heterogeneous results regarding benefit and safety, specifically with regard to cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing more than a year of DAPT with aspirin alone in high-risk patients with a history of prior myocardial infarction (MI).A total of 33 435 patients were followed over a mean 31 months among one trial of patients with prior MI (63.3% of total) and five trials with a subgroup of patients that presented with, or had a history of, a prior MI (36.7% of total). Extended DAPT decreased the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with aspirin alone (6.4 vs. 7.5%; risk ratio, RR 0.78, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 0.67-0.90; P = 0.001) and reduced cardiovascular death (2.3 vs. 2.6%; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98; P = 0.03), with no increase in non-cardiovascular death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86-1.23; P = 0.76). The resultant effect on all-cause mortality was an RR of 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.03; P = 0.13). Extended DAPT also reduced MI (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55-0.88; P = 0.003), stroke (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97; P = 0.02), and stent thrombosis (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.89; P = 0.02). There was an increased risk of major bleeding (1.85 vs. 1.09%; RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19-2.50; P = 0.004) but not fatal bleeding (0.14 vs. 0.17%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.53-1.58; P = 0.75).Compared with aspirin alone, DAPT beyond 1 year among stabilized high-risk patients with prior MI decreases ischaemic events, including significant reductions in the individual endpoints of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, and stroke. Dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year increases major bleeding, but not fatal bleeding or non-cardiovascular death.

The interest in rotational atherectomy (RA) has increased over the past decade as a consequence of more complex and calcified coronary stenoses being attempted with percutaneous coronary interventions. Yet adoption of RA is hampered by several factors: amongst others, by the lack of a standardised protocol. This European expert consensus document stems from the awareness of the large heterogeneity in the protocols adopted to perform rotational atherectomy. The objective of the present document is to provide some points of consensus among highly experienced operators on the most controversial steps of RA in an attempt to build the basis of a standardised and universally accepted protocol.

The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients at high risk of bleeding or thrombosis has not been prospectively studied; limited data are available in patients who have a low restenosis risk. This study sought to compare a hydrophilic polymer-based, second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with a unique drug fast-release profile versus bare-metal stents (BMS) under similar durations of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We randomly assigned 1,606 patients with stable or unstable symptoms, and who on the basis of thrombotic bleeding or restenosis risk criteria, qualified as uncertain candidates for DES, to receive ZES or BMS. DAPT duration was on the basis of patient characteristics, rather than stent characteristics, and allowed for a personalized 1-month dual antiplatelet regimen. The primary endpoint was the risk of 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Median DAPT duration was 32 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 30 to 180 days) and did not differ between the groups. In the ZES group, 140 patients (17.5%) reached the primary endpoint, compared with 178 patients (22.1%) in the BMS group (hazard ratio: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.95; p = 0.011) as a result of lower MI (2.9% vs. 8.1%; p < 0.001) and TVR rates (5.9% vs.10.7%; p = 0.001) in the ZES group. Definite or probable stent thrombosis was also significantly reduced in ZES recipients (2.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.019). Compared with BMS, DES implantation using a stent with a biocompatible polymer and fast drug-eluting characteristics, combined with an abbreviated, tailored DAPT regimen, resulted in a lower risk of 1-year MACE in uncertain candidates for DES implantation. (Zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates [ZEUS] Study; NCT01385319)

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative frequency of access and nonaccess site bleeding, the association of these events with 1-year mortality, and the impact of randomized antithrombotic therapy. Post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) bleeding has been strongly associated with subsequent mortality. The extent to which access versus nonaccess site bleeding contributes to this poor prognosis and the role of antithrombotic therapies remains poorly understood. The incidence and impact of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major/minor 30-day bleeding and randomized antithrombotic therapy were examined in a combined dataset from the REPLACE-2 (Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events), Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY), and HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trials in 17,393 PCI patients. The TIMI major/minor bleeding occurred in 5.3% of patients, 61.4% of which (3.3%) were nonaccess site bleeds. After multivariable adjustment, TIMI bleeding was associated with an increased risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.51 to 4.00, p < 0.0001). The HR of a nonaccess site bleed was approximately 2-fold that of an access site bleed: HR: 3.94, 95% CI: 3.07 to 5.15, p < 0.0001 versus HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.83, p = 0.008, respectively. Randomization to bivalirudin versus heparin + a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor resulted in 38% and 43% relative reductions in TIMI major/minor and TIMI major bleeding, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both), with significant reductions in both access and nonaccess site bleeding. Nonaccess site bleeding after PCI is common, representing approximately two-thirds of all TIMI bleeding events, and is associated with a 4-fold increase in 1-year mortality. Use of bivalirudin rather than heparin + a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor significantly decreases both nonaccess site as well as access site bleeding events by approximately 40%.

Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with higher ischemic risk, which can be mitigated by long-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, concomitant high bleeding risk (HBR) may be present, making it unclear whether short- or long-term DAPT should be prioritized. This study investigated the effects of ischemic (by PCI complexity) and bleeding (by PRECISE-DAPT [PREdicting bleeding Complications in patients undergoing stent Implantation and SubsequEnt Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy] score) risks on clinical outcomes and on the impact of DAPT duration after coronary stenting. Complex PCI was defined as ≥3 stents implanted and/or ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation stenting and/or stent length >60 mm, and/or chronic total occlusion revascularization. Ischemic and bleeding outcomes in high (≥25) or non-high (<25) PRECISE-DAPT strata were evaluated based on randomly allocated duration of DAPT. Among 14,963 patients from 8 randomized trials, 3,118 underwent complex PCI and experienced a higher rate of ischemic, but not bleeding, events. Long-term DAPT in non-HBR patients reduced ischemic events in both complex (absolute risk difference: −3.86%; 95% confidence interval: −7.71 to +0.06) and noncomplex PCI strata (absolute risk difference: −1.14%; 95% confidence interval: −2.26 to −0.02), but not among HBR patients, regardless of complex PCI features. The bleeding risk according to the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction scale was increased by long-term DAPT only in HBR patients, regardless of PCI complexity. Patients who underwent complex PCI had a higher risk of ischemic events, but benefitted from long-term DAPT only if HBR features were not present. These data suggested that when concordant, bleeding, more than ischemic risk, should inform decision-making on the duration of DAPT.

Abstract Aims To investigate the safety and efficacy of double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (DAT vs. TAT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome or who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PubMed to search for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-based randomized clinical trials comparing DAT vs. TAT in AF patients undergoing PCI. Four trials encompassing 10 234 patients (DAT = 5496 vs. TAT = 4738) were included. The primary safety endpoint (ISTH major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) was significantly lower with DAT compared with TAT [risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56–0.78; P &amp;lt; 0.0001; I 2 = 69%], which was consistent across all available bleeding definitions. This benefit was counterbalanced by a significant increase of stent thrombosis (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01–2.50; P = 0.04; I 2 = 0%) and a trend towards higher risk of myocardial infarction with DAT. There were no significant differences in all-cause and cardiovascular death, stroke and major adverse cardiovascular events. The comparison of NOAC-based DAT vs. vitamin K antagonist (VKA)-TAT yielded consistent results and a significant reduction of intracranial haemorrhage (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17–0.65; P = 0.001; I 2 = 0%). Conclusion Double antithrombotic therapy, particularly if consisting of a NOAC instead of VKA and a P2Y12 inhibitor, is associated with a reduction of bleeding, including major and intracranial haemorrhages. This benefit is however counterbalanced by a higher risk of cardiac—mainly stent-related—but not cerebrovascular ischaemic occurrences.

To investigate the long-term prognostic implications of coronary calcification in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for obstructive coronary artery disease.Patient-level data from 6296 patients enrolled in seven clinical drug-eluting stents trials were analysed to identify in angiographic images the presence of severe coronary calcification by an independent academic research organisation (Cardialysis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Clinical outcomes at 3-years follow-up including all-cause mortality, death-myocardial infarction (MI), and the composite end-point of all-cause death-MI-any revascularisation were compared between patients with and without severe calcification.Severe calcification was detected in 20% of the studied population. Patients with severe lesion calcification were less likely to have undergone complete revascularisation (48% vs 55.6%, p<0.001) and had an increased mortality compared with those without severely calcified arteries (10.8% vs 4.4%, p<0.001). The event rate was also high in patients with severely calcified lesions for the combined end-point death-MI (22.9% vs 10.9%; p<0.001) and death-MI- any revascularisation (31.8% vs 22.4%; p<0.001). On multivariate Cox regression analysis, including the Syntax score, the presence of severe coronary calcification was an independent predictor of poor prognosis (HR: 1.33 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77, p=0.047 for death; 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.49, p=0.031 for death-MI, and 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.39, p=0.042 for death-MI- any revascularisation), but it was not associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis.Patients with severely calcified lesions have worse clinical outcomes compared to those without severe coronary calcification. Severe coronary calcification appears as an independent predictor of worse prognosis, and should be considered as a marker of advanced atherosclerosis.

The Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox (MATRIX) programme was designed to assess the comparative safety and effectiveness of radial versus femoral access and of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with the whole spectrum of acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. Here we describe the prespecified final 1-year outcomes of the entire programme.MATRIX was a programme of three nested, randomised, multicentre, open-label, superiority trials in patients with acute coronary syndrome in 78 hospitals in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were simultaneously randomly assigned (1:1) before coronary angiography to radial or femoral access and to bivalirudin, with or without post-percutaneous coronary intervention infusion or unfractionated heparin (one-step inclusion). Patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned (1:1) before coronary angiography to radial or femoral access and, only if deemed eligible to percutaneous coronary intervention after angiography (two-step inclusion), entered the antithrombin type and treatment duration programmes. Randomisation sequences were computer generated, blocked, and stratified by intended new or current use of P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel vs ticagrelor or prasugrel), and acute coronary syndrome type (ST-elevation myocardial infarction, troponin-positive, or troponin-negative non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome). Bivalirudin was given as a bolus of 0·75 mg/kg, followed immediately by an infusion of 1·75 mg/kg per h until completion of percutaneous coronary intervention. Heparin was given at 70-100 units per kg in patients not receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and at 50-70 units per kg in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Clinical follow-up was done at 30 days and 1 year. Co-primary outcomes for MATRIX access and MATRIX antithrombin type were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to 30 days; and net adverse clinical events, defined as the composite of non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding, or major adverse cardiovascular events up to 30 days. The primary outcome for MATRIX treatment duration was the composite of urgent target vessel revascularisation, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events up to 30 days. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627.Between Oct 11, 2011, and Nov 7, 2014, we randomly assigned 8404 patients to receive radial (4197 patients) or femoral (4207 patients) access. Of these 8404 patients, 7213 were included in the MATRIX antithrombin type study and were randomly assigned to bivalirudin (3610 patients) or heparin (3603 patients). Patients assigned to bivalirudin were included in the MATRIX treatment duration study, and were randomly assigned to post-procedure infusion (1799 patients) or no post-procedure infusion (1811 patients). At 1 year, major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ between patients assigned to radial access compared with those assigned to femoral access (14·2% vs 15·7%; rate ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·80-1·00; p=0·0526), but net adverse clinical events were fewer with radial than with femoral access (15·2% vs 17·2%; 0·87, 0·78-0·97; p=0·0128). Compared with heparin, bivalirudin was not associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular (15·8% vs 16·8%; 0·94, 0·83-1·05; p=0·28) or net adverse clinical events (17·0% vs 18·4%; 0·91, 0·81-1·02; p=0·10). The composite of urgent target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events did not differ with or without post-procedure bivalirudin infusion (17·4% vs 17·4%; 0·99, 0·84-1·16; p=0·90).In patients with acute coronary syndrome, radial access was associated with lower rates of net adverse clinical events compared with femoral access, but not major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year. Bivalirudin with or without post-procedure infusion was not associated with lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events or net adverse clinical events. Radial access should become the default approach in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing invasive management.Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology, The Medicines Company, Terumo, amd Canada Research Chairs Programme.

No randomized studies have thus far evaluated intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era. The aim was to evaluate if IVUS optimized DES implantation was superior to angiographic guidance alone in complex lesions. Randomized, multicentre, international, open label, investigator-driven study evaluating IVUS vs angiographically guided DES implantation in patients with complex lesions (defined as bifurcations, long lesions, chronic total occlusions or small vessels). Primary study endpoint was post-procedure in lesion minimal lumen diameter. Secondary end points were combined major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis at 1, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months. The study included 284 patients. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics. The primary study end point showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the IVUS group (2.70 mm ± 0.46 mm vs. 2.51 ± 0.46 mm; P = .0002). During hospitalization, no patient died, had repeated revascularization, or a Q-wave MI. No difference was observed in the occurrence of non-Q wave MI (6.3% in IVUS vs. 7.0% in angio-guided group). At 24-months clinical follow-up, no differences were still observed in cumulative MACE (16.9%vs. 23.2 %), cardiac death (0%vs. 1.4%), MI (7.0%vs. 8.5%), target lesion revascularization (9.2% vs. 11.9%) or target vessel revascularization (9.8% vs. 15.5%), respectively in the IVUS vs. angio-guided groups. In total, only one definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the IVUS group. A benefit of IVUS optimized DES implantation was observed in complex lesions in the post-procedure minimal lumen diameter. No statistically significant difference was found in MACE up to 24 months.

The aim of this substudy of the EXAMINATION-EXTEND was to analyze 10-year outcomes according to the patient's age at the time of the first ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Of 1,498 patients with STEMI included in the EXAMINATION-EXTEND study, those with a previous history of coronary ischemic even or ischemic stroke were excluded from this analysis. The remaining 1,375 patients were divided into 4 age groups: <55, 55 to 65, 65 to 75, and >75 years. The primary end point was 10-year patient-oriented composite end point (POCE) of all-cause death, any MI, or any revascularization. At 10-year follow-up, patients aged <55 years (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18 to 0.31, p = 0.001), 55 to 65 years (adjusted HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.34, p = 0.001), and 65 to 75 years (adjusted HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.50, p = 0.001) showed lower risk of POCE than those aged >75 years, led by a lower incidence of all-cause death (<55 : 6% vs 55 to 65: 11.9% vs 65 to 75: 25.7% vs >75 years: 61.6%, p = 0.001). Cardiac death was more prevalent in the older group (<55: 3.7% vs 55 to 65: 5.8% vs 65 to 75: 10.9% vs >75 years: 35.5%, p = 0.001). In the landmark analyses, between 5- and 10-year follow-up, young patients exhibited a higher incidence of any revascularization (<55: 7.4% vs 55 to 65: 4.9% vs 65 to 75: 1.8% vs >65 years: 1.6%, p = 0.001). In conclusion, in patients with a first STEMI, advanced age was associated with high rates of POCE at 10-year follow-up due to all-cause and cardiac death. Conversely, younger patients exhibited a high risk of revascularization at long-term follow-up.

The RenalGuard System, which creates high urine output and fluid balancing, may be beneficial in preventing contrast-induced acute kidney injury.The Renal Insufficiency After Contrast Media Administration Trial II (REMEDIAL II) trial is a randomized, multicenter, investigator-driven trial addressing the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in high-risk patients. Patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤30 mL · min(-1) · 1.73 m(-2) and/or a risk score ≥11 were randomly assigned to sodium bicarbonate solution and N-acetylcysteine (control group) or hydration with saline and N-acetylcysteine controlled by the RenalGuard System and furosemide (RenalGuard group). The primary end point was an increase of ≥0.3 mg/dL in the serum creatinine concentration at 48 hours after the procedure. The secondary end points included serum cystatin C kinetics and rate of in-hospital dialysis. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury occurred in 16 of 146 patients in the RenalGuard group (11%) and in 30 of 146 patients in the control group (20.5%; odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.92). There were 142 patients (48.5%) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤30 mL · min(-1) · 1.73 and 149 patients (51.5%) with only a risk score ≥11. Subgroup analysis according to inclusion criteria showed a similarly lower risk of adverse events (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤30 mL · min(-1) · 1.73 m(-2): odds ratio, 0.44; risk score ≥11: odds ratio, 0.45; P for interaction=0.97). Changes in cystatin C at 24 hours (0.02±0.32 versus -0.08±0.26; P=0.002) and 48 hours (0.12±0.42 versus 0.03±0.31; P=0.001) and the rate of in-hospital dialysis (4.1% versus 0.7%; P=0.056) were higher in the control group.RenalGuard therapy is superior to sodium bicarbonate and N-acetylcysteine in preventing contrast-induced acute kidney injury in high-risk patients.URL: http://www.clinicaltrial.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01098032.

The authors investigated the relative safety and efficacy of different drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) using a network meta-analysis.The relative safety of DES and BMS in patients with STEMI continues to be debated, and whether advances have been made in this regard with second-generation DES is unknown.Randomized controlled trials comparing currently U.S. approved DES or DES with BMS in patients with STEMI were searched using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted.Twenty-two trials including 12,453 randomized patients were analyzed. At 1-year follow-up, cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents (CoCr-EES) were associated with significantly lower rates of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST) than BMS. Differences in ST were apparent as early as 30 days and were maintained for 2 years. CoCr-EES were also associated with significantly lower rates of 1-year ST than paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) were also associated with significantly lower rates of 1-year cardiac death/myocardial infarction than BMS. CoCr-EES, PES, and SES, but not zotarolimus-eluting stents, had significantly lower rates of 1-year target vessel revascularization (TVR) than BMS, with SES also showing lower rates of TVR than PES.In patients with STEMI, steady improvements in outcomes have been realized with the evolution from BMS to first-generation and now second-generation DES, with the most favorable safety and efficacy profile thus far demonstrated with CoCr-EES.

2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

AimsDual antiplatelet therapy reduces non-fatal ischaemic events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) but increases bleeding to a similar extent. We sought to determine the prognostic impact of myocardial infarction (MI) vs. bleeding during an extended follow-up period to gain insight into the trade-off between efficacy and safety among patients after ACS.

Data for the safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents at long-term follow-up, and specifically in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, are scarce. In the EXAMINATION trial, we compared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In this study, we assessed the 5-year outcomes of the population in the EXAMINATION trial.In the multicentre EXAMINATION trial, done in Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive EES or BMS. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated and central randomisation (by telephone) was used to allocate patients in blocks of four or six, stratified by centre. Patients were masked to treatment assignment. At 5 years, we assessed the combined patient-oriented outcome of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087.1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). At 5 years, complete clinical follow-up data were obtained for 731 patients treated with EES and 727 treated with BMS (97% of both groups). The patient-oriented endpoint occurred in 159 (21%) patients in the EES group versus 192 (26%) in the BMS group (hazard ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·65-0·98; p=0·033). This difference was mainly driven by a reduced rate of all-cause mortality (65 [9%] vs 88 [12%]; 0·72, 0·52-0·10; p=0·047).Our findings should be taken as a point of reference for the assessment of new bioresorbable polymer-based metallic stents or bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Spanish Heart Foundation.

New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and have typically shown similar efficacy and superior safety. How the safety profile of new-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear.We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials to compare outcomes after implantation of new-generation DES or BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Data were pooled in a one-stage random-effects meta-analysis and examined at maximum follow-up and a 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42017060520.We obtained individual data for 26 616 patients in 20 randomised trials. Mean follow-up was 3·2 (SD 1·8) years. The risk of the primary outcome was reduced in DES recipients compared with BMS recipients (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·78-0·90, p<0·001) owing to a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0·79, 0·71-0·88, p<0·001) and a possible slight but non-significant cardiac mortality benefit (0·89, 0·78-1·01, p=0·075). All-cause death was unaffected (HR with DES 0·96, 95% CI 0·88-1·05, p=0·358), but risk was lowered for definite stent thrombosis (0·63, 0·50-0·80, p<0·001) and target-vessel revascularisation (0·55, 0·50-0·60, p<0·001). We saw a time-dependent treatment effect, with DES being associated with lower risk of the primary outcome than BMS up to 1 year after placement. While the effect was maintained in the longer term, there was no further divergence from BMS after 1 year.The performance of new-generation DES in the first year after implantation means that BMS should no longer be considered the gold standard for safety. Further development of DES technology should target improvements in clinical outcomes beyond 1 year.Bern University Hospital.

Randomized controlled trials comparing short- (≤6 months) with long-term (≥1 year) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent(s) (DES) placement have been insufficiently powered to detect significant differences in the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE).This study sought to compare clinical outcomes between short- (≤6 months) and long-term (1 year) DAPT and among 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year of DAPT post-DES placement by performing an individual patient data pairwise and network meta-analysis.Randomized controlled trials comparing DAPT durations after DES placement were searched through the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases and in international meeting proceedings. The primary study outcome was 1-year risk of MACE (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite/probable stent thrombosis).Four trials including 8,180 randomized patients were identified. At 1-year follow-up, short-term DAPT was associated with similar rates of MACE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86 to 1.43; p = 0.44), but significantly lower rates of bleeding (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.94; p = 0.03) versus prolonged DAPT. Comparable results were apparent in the landmark period between DAPT discontinuation and 1-year follow-up (for MACE: HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.89; p = 0.42) (for bleeding: HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.91; p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in 1-year rates of MACE among 3-month versus 1-year DAPT, 6-month versus 1-year DAPT, or 3-month versus 6-month DAPT.Compared with prolonged DAPT, short-term DAPT is associated with similar rates of MACE but lower rates of bleeding after DES placement.

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.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.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).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.).

To assess the risks and benefits of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and whether these associations are modified by patients' characteristics.Individual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Searches were conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and three websites (www.tctmd.com, www.escardio.org, www.acc.org/cardiosourceplus) from inception to 16 July 2020. The primary authors provided individual participant data.Randomised controlled trials comparing effects of oral P2Y12 monotherapy and DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints after coronary revascularisation in patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation.The primary outcome was a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, tested for non-inferiority against a margin of 1.15 for the hazard ratio. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or type 5 bleeding.The meta-analysis included data from six trials, including 24 096 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 283 (2.95%) patients with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 315 (3.27%) with DAPT in the per protocol population (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.09; P=0.005 for non-inferiority; P=0.38 for superiority; τ2=0.00) and in 303 (2.94%) with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 338 (3.36%) with DAPT in the intention to treat population (0.90, 0.77 to 1.05; P=0.18 for superiority; τ2=0.00). The treatment effect was consistent across all subgroups, except for sex (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting that P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy lowers the risk of the primary ischaemic endpoint in women (hazard ratio 0.64, 0.46 to 0.89) but not in men (1.00, 0.83 to 1.19). The risk of bleeding was lower with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy than with DAPT (97 (0.89%) v 197 (1.83%); hazard ratio 0.49, 0.39 to 0.63; P<0.001; τ2=0.03), which was consistent across subgroups, except for type of P2Y12 inhibitor (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting greater benefit when a newer P2Y12 inhibitor rather than clopidogrel was part of the DAPT regimen.P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with evidence that this association may be modified by sex, and a lower bleeding risk compared with DAPT.PROSPERO CRD42020176853.

2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation

<h2>Summary</h2><h3>Background</h3> Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that combine ultrathin strut metallic platforms with biodegradable polymers might facilitate vascular healing and improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with contemporary thin strut second-generation drug-eluting stents. We did a randomised clinical trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI. <h3>Methods</h3> The BIOSTEMI trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, prospective, single-blind, randomised superiority trial at ten hospitals in Switzerland. Patients aged 18 years or older with acute STEMI who were referred for primary PCI were eligible to participate. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Central randomisation was done based on a computer-generated allocation sequence with variable block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, which was stratified by centre, diabetes status, and presence or absence of multivessel coronary artery disease, and concealed using a secure web-based system. Patients and treating physicians were aware of group allocations, whereas outcome assessors were masked to the allocated stent. The experimental stent (Orsiro; Biotronik; Bülach, Switzerland) consisted of an ultrathin strut cobalt–chromium metallic stent platform releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer. The control stent (Xience Xpedition/Alpine; Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL, USA) consisted of a thin strut cobalt–chromium stent platform that releases everolimus from a durable polymer. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction (Q-wave and non-Q-wave), and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation, within 12 months of the index procedure. All analyses were done with the individual participant as the unit of analysis and according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02579031. <h3>Findings</h3> Between April 26, 2016, and March 9, 2018, we randomly assigned 1300 patients (1623 lesions) with acute myocardial infarction to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (649 patients and 816 lesions) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (651 patients and 806 lesions). At 12 months, follow-up data were available for 614 (95%) patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and 626 (96%) patients treated with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. The primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure occurred in 25 (4%) of 649 patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and 36 (6%) of 651 patients treated with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (difference −1·6 percentage points; rate ratio 0·59, 95% Bayesian credibility interval 0·37–0·94; posterior probability of superiority 0·986). Cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation, and definite stent thrombosis were similar between the two treatment groups in the 12 months of follow-up. <h3>Interpretation</h3> In patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary PCI, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were superior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents with respect to target lesion failure at 1 year. This difference was driven by reduced ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation in patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. <h3>Funding</h3> Biotronik.

AIMS The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) defined consensusbased criteria for patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).We aimed to validate the ARC-HBR criteria for the bleeding outcomes using a large cohort of patients undergoing PCI.METHODS AND RESULTS Between 2009 and 2016, patients undergoing PCI were prospectively included in the Bern PCI Registry.Patients were considered to be at HBR if at least one major criterion or two minor criteria were met.The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding at one year; ischaemic outcomes were assessed using the device-oriented composite endpoints (DOCE) of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularisation.Among 12,121 patients, those at HBR (n=4,781, 39.4%) had an increased risk of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (6.4% vs 1.9%; p<0.001) and DOCE (12.5% vs 6.1%; p<0.001) compared with those without HBR.The degree of risk and prognostic value were related to the risk factors composing the criteria.The ARC-HBR criteria had higher sensitivity than the PRECISE-DAPT score and the PARIS bleeding risk score (63.8%, 53.1%, 31.9%),but lower specificity (62.7%, 71.3%, 86.5%) for BARC 3 or 5 bleeding.CONCLUSIONS Patients at HBR defined by the ARC-HBR criteria had a higher risk of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding as well as DOCE.The bleeding risk was related to its individual components.The ARC-HBR criteria were more sensitive for identifying patients with future bleedings than other contemporary risk scores at the cost of specificity.ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier: NCT02241291 Visual summary.According to the ARC-HBR criteria, 40% of patients undergoing PCI were at HBR.Compared with patients without HBR, those at HBR had an increased risk of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (6.4% vs 1.9%, p<0.001).There was a gradual risk increase for BARC 3 or 5 bleeding and DOCE as a function of the ARC-HBR score.

To assess the effects of 1- or ≥3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients who received biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents for complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or acute coronary syndrome (ACS).In the MASTER DAPT trial, 3383 patients underwent non-complex (abbreviated DAPT, n = 1707; standard DAPT, n = 1676) and 1196 complex (abbreviated DAPT, n = 588; standard DAPT, n = 608) PCI. Co-primary outcomes at 335 days were net adverse clinical events [NACE; composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding academic research consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding events]; major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (MACCE; all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke); and Types 2, 3, or 5 BARC bleeding. Net adverse clinical events and MACCE did not differ with abbreviated vs. standard DAPT among patients with complex [hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-1.52, and HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.92, respectively] and non-complex PCI (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.71-1.15, and HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.69-1.21; Pinteraction = 0.60 and 0.26, respectively). BARC 2, 3, or 5 was reduced with abbreviated DAPT in patients with and without complex PCI (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.98, and HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.89; Pinteraction = 0.72). Among the 2816 patients with complex PCI and/or ACS, NACE and MACCE did not differ and BARC 2, 3, or 5 was lower with abbreviated DAPT.In HBR patients free from recurrent ischaemic events at 1 month, DAPT discontinuation was associated with similar NACE and MACCE and lower bleeding rates compared with standard DAPT, regardless of PCI or patient complexity.This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03023020, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed.

Aspirin is the only antiplatelet agent with a Class I recommendation for long-term prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). There is inconsistent evidence on how it compares with alternative antiplatelet agents. This study compared P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin in patients with CAD. We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established CAD. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prespecified key secondary outcomes were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (the composite of the primary outcome and major bleeding). Data were pooled in a 1-step meta-analysis. Patient-level data were obtained from 7 trials. Overall, 24,325 participants were available for analysis, including 12,178 patients assigned to receive P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (clopidogrel in 7,545 [62.0%], ticagrelor in 4,633 [38.0%]) and 12,147 assigned to receive aspirin. Risk of the primary outcome was lower with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with aspirin over 2 years (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97; P = 0.012), mainly owing to less myocardial infarction (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66-0.90; P < 0.001). Major bleeding was similar (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-1.09; P = 0.23) and net adverse clinical events were lower (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81-0.98; P = 0.020) with P2Y12 inhibitors. The treatment effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups and types of P2Y12 inhibitors. Given its superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy might be preferred over aspirin monotherapy for long-term secondary prevention in patients with established CAD. (P2Y12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy as Secondary Prevention in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials [PANTHER collaborative initiative]; CRD42021290774)

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate predictors of an adverse outcome after "crush" bifurcation stenting.The "crush" technique is a recently introduced strategy with limited data regarding long-term outcomes.We identified 231 consecutive patients treated with drug-eluting stent implantation with the "crush" technique for 241 de novo bifurcation lesions. Clinical follow-up was obtained in 99.6%.The in-hospital major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was 5.2%. At 9 months, 10 (4.3%) patients had an event consistent with possible post-procedural stent thrombosis. Survival free of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 90.3%; the only independent predictor of TLR was left main stem (LMS) therapy (odds ratio [OR] 4.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.00 to 12.37, p = 0.001). Survival free of MACE was 83.5% and independent predictors of MACE were LMS therapy (OR 3.79; 95% CI 1.76 to 8.14, p = 0.001) and treatment of patients with multivessel disease (OR 4.21; 95% CI 0.95 to 18.56, p = 0.058). Angiographic follow-up was obtained in 77% of lesions at 8.3 +/- 3.7 months. The mean late loss of the main vessel and side branch were 0.30 +/- 0.64 mm and 0.41 +/- 0.67 mm, respectively, with binary restenosis rates of 9.1% and 25.3%. Kissing balloon post-dilation significantly reduced the side branch late lumen loss (0.24 +/- 0.50 mm vs. 0.58 +/- 0.77 mm, p < 0.001).The crush technique of bifurcation stenting with drug-eluting stents is associated with favorable outcomes for most lesions; however, efficacy appears significantly reduced in LMS bifurcations, and further research is needed before the technique can be routinely recommended in this group. Furthermore, the incidence of possible stent thrombosis is of concern and requires further investigation. Kissing balloon post-dilatation is mandatory to reduce side branch restenosis.

We investigated the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) when used without restriction in unselected patients.Both SES and PES have been separately shown to be efficacious when compared to bare stents. In unselected patients, no direct comparison between the two devices has been performed.Paclitaxel-eluting stents have been used as the stent of choice for all percutaneous coronary interventions in the prospective Taxus-Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registry. A total of 576 consecutive patients with de novo coronary artery disease exclusively treated with PES were compared with 508 patients treated with SES from the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry.The PES patients were more frequently male, more frequently treated for acute myocardial infarction, had longer total stent lengths, and more frequently received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. At one year, the raw cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 13.9% in the PES group and 10.5% in the SES group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 to 1.88, p = 0.1). Correction for differences in the two groups resulted in an adjusted HR of 1.16 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.64, p = 0.4, using significant univariate variables) and an adjusted HR of 1.20 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.70, p = 0.3, using independent predictors). The one-year cumulative incidence of clinically driven target vessel revascularization was 5.4% versus 3.7%, respectively (HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.43, p = 0.3).The universal use of PES in an unrestricted setting is safe and is associated with a similar adjusted outcome compared to SES. The inferior trend in crude outcome seen in PES was due to its higher-risk population. A larger, randomized study enrolling an unselected population may assist in determining the relative superiority of either device.

Inhibition of platelet aggregation after aspirin or clopidogrel intake varies greatly among patients, and previous studies have suggested that poor response to oral antiplatelet agents may increase the risk of thrombotic events, especially after coronary angioplasty. Whether this reflects suboptimal platelet inhibition per se, which might benefit from more potent antiplatelet agents such as tirofiban, is unknown.We screened 1277 patients to enroll 93 aspirin, 147 clopidogrel, and 23 dual poor responders, based on a point-of-care assay, who underwent elective coronary angioplasty at 10 European sites for stable or low-risk unstable coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either tirofiban (n=132) or placebo (n=131) on top of standard aspirin and clopidogrel therapy. The primary end point, consisting of troponin I/T elevation at least 3 times the upper limit of normal, was attained in 20.4% (n=27) in the tirofiban group compared with 35.1% (n=46) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.88; P=0.009). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days in the tirofiban group also was reduced (3.8% versus 10.7%; P=0.031). The overall incidence of bleeding was low, likely explained by a substantial use of the transradial approach, and did not differ between the 2 groups.In low-risk patients according to clinical presentation who had poor responsiveness to standard oral platelet inhibitors via a point-of-care assay, intensified platelet inhibition with tirofiban lowers the incidence of myocardial infarction after elective coronary intervention.

The presence of a lumen narrowing at the ostium and the body of an unprotected left main coronary artery but does not require bifurcation treatment is a class I indication of surgical revascularization.A total of 147 consecutive patients who had a stenosis in the ostium and/or the midshaft of an unprotected left main coronary artery (treatment of the bifurcation not required) and were electively treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and sirolimus-eluting stents (n=107) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (n=40) in 5 centres were included in this registry. In 72 patients (almost 50%), intravascular ultrasound guidance was performed. Procedural success was achieved in 99% of the patients; in 1 patient with stenosis in the left main coronary artery ostium, a >30% residual stenosis persisted at the end of the procedure, and the patient was referred for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. During hospitalization, no patients experienced a Q-wave myocardial infarction or died. One patient died 19 days after the procedure because of pulmonary infection. At long-term clinical follow-up (886+/-308 days), 5 patients had died; 7 patients had target vessel revascularization (5 repeat percutaneous coronary interventions and 2 coronary artery bypass graft surgeries), and of these only 1 patient had a target lesion revascularization. Angiographic follow-up was performed in 106 patients (72%) with a late loss of -0.01 mm. Restenosis in the left main trunk occurred only in 1 patient (0.9%).Percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents implantation in nonbifurcation left main coronary artery lesions appears safe with a long-term major adverse clinical event rate of 7.4% and a restenosis rate of 0.9%.

There is increasing evidence that stem cell (SC) mobilization to the heart and their differentiation into cardiac cells is a naturally occurring process. We sought to assess the safety and feasibility of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration in humans to enhance SC mobilization and left ventricle (LV) injury repair during myocardial infarction (MI).Twenty patients with STEMI (mean age, 61+/-10 years), of whom 14 were submitted to primary percutaneous coronary intervention, were randomized to G-CSF (5 microg/kg/day s.c. for 4 consecutive days) or placebo. At entry and then at months 3 and 6, (99m)Tc-sestamibi gated-SPECT was performed to estimate extension of perfusion defect (PD) and LV function. The study drug was well tolerated and induced a significant increase of white blood count, CD34(+) cells, and CD34(+) cells coexpressing AC133 and VEGFR-2. At follow-up, treated and placebo groups did not differ for the angiographic coronary late loss and showed a similar pattern of PD recovery, whereas in the former at 6 months LVEF and especially LVEDV tended to be relatively higher (P=0.068) and lower (P=0.054), respectively.G-CSF administration in acute MI patients was feasible and did not lead to any clinical or angiographic adverse events and resulted in CD34(+) and CD34(+)AC133(+)VEGFR2(+) cell mobilization.

Tumor necrosis factor alpha-alpha (TNF-alpha) activation is an independent prognostic indicator of mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). Despite the recognition that several TNF family cytokines are elevated during myocardial infarction, their role in predicting subsequent prognosis in these setting remains poorly understood.We performed a systematic evaluation of TNF-alpha and its type 1 and 2 soluble receptors, together with interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1 receptor antagonist, and IL-10, in 184 patients (132 men; mean age, 64+/-12) consecutively admitted for myocardial infarction. We correlated their values to short- and long-term incidence of death and HF (primary outcome). In 10 patients, we also studied the presence of transcardiac gradients for TNF-alpha and its soluble receptors. The control group comprised 45 healthy subjects who were sex and age matched (33 men; mean age, 65+/-6 years) to the patients. All tested cytokines were increased in patients, and no transcardiac or systemic AV difference was found. After a median follow-up of 406 days (range, 346 to 696 days), 24 patients died and 32 developed HF. Univariate analysis showed that all cytokines were related to outcome, whereas after adjustment for baseline and clinical characteristics, sTNFR-1 remained the only independent predictor of death and HF (hazard ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.9 to 3.8, tertile 1 versus 3), together with left ventricular ejection fraction, Killip class, and creatine kinase-MB at peak.sTNFR-1 is a major short- and long-term predictor of mortality and HF in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

This study sought to investigate whether the anatomical location of the disease carries prognostic implications in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for the left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. Liberal use of DES, compared with a bare metal stent (BMS), has resulted in an improved outcome in patients undergoing LMCA intervention. However, the overall event rate in this subset of patients remains high, and alternative tools to risk-stratify this population beyond conventional surgical risk status would be desirable. From April 2002 to June 2004, 130 patients received DES as part of the percutaneous intervention for LMCA stenoses in our institution. Distal LMCA disease (DLMD) was present in 94 patients. They were at higher surgical risk and presented with a greater coronary disease extent compared with patients without DLMD. After a median of 587 days (range 368 to 1,179 days), the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was significantly higher in patients with DLMD at 30% versus 11% in those without DLMD (hazard ratio [HR] 3.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34 to 9.7; p = 0.007), mainly driven by the different rate of target vessel revascularization (13% and 3%; HR 6, 95% CI 1.2 to 29; p = 0.02). After adjustment for confounders, DLMD (HR 2.79,95% CI 1.17 to 8.9; p = 0.032) and surgical risk status (HR 2.18,95% CI 1.06 to 4.5; p = 0.038) remained independent and complementary predictors of MACE. Distal LMCA disease carries independent prognostic implications, and it may help in selecting the most appropriate patient subset for LMCA intervention beyond the conventional surgical risk status in the DES era.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. Long-term clinical outcomes after DES implantation for ULMCA disease have not yet been ascertained. From April 2002 to April 2004, 358 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA were retrospectively selected and analyzed in 7 European and U.S. tertiary care centers. No patients were excluded from the analysis, and all patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Technical success rate was 100%. Procedural success rate was 89.6%. After 3 years, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)–free survival in the whole population was 73.5%. According to the Academic Research Consortium definitions, cardiac death occurred in 9.2% of patients, and reinfarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) occurred in 8.6%, 5.8%, and 14.2% of patients, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (specifically at 0 and 439 days). In elective patients, the 3-year MACE-free survival was 74.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 6.2%, 8.3%, 6.6%, and 16%, respectively. In the emergent group the 3-year MACE-free survival was 68.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 21.4%, 10%, 2.8%, and 7.1%, respectively. Routine DES implantation in ULMCA disease seems encouraging, with favorable long-term clinical results.

Surveillance conventional coronary angiography (CCA) is recommended 2 to 6 months after stent-supported left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention due to the unpredictable occurrence of in-stent restenosis (ISR), with its attendant risks. Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) is a promising technique for noninvasive coronary evaluation. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of high-resolution MSCT to detect ISR after stenting of the LMCA.Seventy-four patients were prospectively identified from a consecutive patient population scheduled for follow-up CCA after LMCA stenting and underwent MSCT before CCA. Until August 2004, a 16-slice scanner was used (n = 27), but we switched to the 64-slice scanner after that period (n = 43). Patients with initial heart rates > 65 bpm received beta-blockers, which resulted in a mean periscan heart rate of 57 +/- 7 bpm. Among patients with technically adequate scans (n = 70), MSCT correctly identified all patients with ISR (10 of 70) but misclassified 5 patients without ISR (false-positives). Overall, the accuracy of MSCT for detection of angiographic ISR was 93%. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 100%, 91%, 67%, and 100%, respectively. When analysis was restricted to patients with stenting of the LMCA with or without extension into a single major side branch, accuracy was 98%. When both branches of the LMCA bifurcation were stented, accuracy was 83%. For the assessment of stent diameter and area, MSCT showed good correlation with intravascular ultrasound (r = 0.78 and 0.73, respectively). An intravascular ultrasound threshold value > or = 1 mm was identified to reliably detect in-stent neointima hyperplasia with MSCT.Current MSCT technology, in combination with optimal heart rate control, allows reliable noninvasive evaluation of selected patients after LMCA stenting. MSCT is safe to exclude left main ISR and may therefore be an acceptable first-line alternative to CCA.

The authors sought to compare the effect on inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) of prasugrel therapy versus tirofiban bolus with or without a post-bolus short drug infusion in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. The degree and rapidity of IPA after prasugrel alone with or without concomitant glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in STEMI patients is unknown. A total of 100 STEMI patients randomly received prasugrel 60 mg versus 25 μg/kg tirofiban bolus with or without post-bolus 2-h infusion of tirofiban, with or without concomitant prasugrel. IPA at light transmission aggregometry was performed throughout 24 h. The primary endpoint was IPA stimulated with 20 μmol/l adenosine diphosphate (ADP) at 30 min. At 30 min, patients in the prasugrel group showed a significantly lower IPA to 20 μmol/l ADP stimulation as compared with tirofiban-treated patients (36 ± 35 vs. 87 ± 31, p < 0.0001). Similarly, patients taking prasugrel showed a suboptimal degree of platelet inhibition for at least 2 h compared with tirofiban patients. Post-bolus tirofiban infusion was necessary to maintain a high level of IPA beyond 1 h after bolus administration if concomitant clopidogrel was given, whereas the bolus-only tirofiban and concomitant prasugrel led to the higher and more consistent IPA levels after both ADP and thrombin receptor-activating peptide stimuli than either therapy alone. Our study shows that prasugrel administration leads to a suboptimal IPA for at least 2 h in STEMI patients. Yet, prasugrel, given in association with a bolus only of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, obviates the need of post-bolus infusion and almost completely abolishes residual variability of IPA after treatment. (Facilitation through Aggrastat By drOpping or shortening Infusion Line in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction compared to or on top of PRasugrel given at loading dOse [The FABOLUS PRO trial]; NCT01336348)

Cardiac surgery is the standard treatment for unprotected left main disease (ULM). Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation has been recently reported in patients with ULM but with unclear results. We systematically reviewed outcomes of percutaneous DES implantation in ULM. Several databases were searched for clinical studies reporting on ≥20 patients and ≥6-month follow-up. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; ie, death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization [TVR]) at the longest follow-up. Incidence and adjusted risk estimates were pooled with generic inverse variance random-effect methods (95% CIs). From 823 initial citations, 16 studies were included (1278 patients, median follow-up 10 months). Eight were uncontrolled registries, 5 nonrandomized comparisons between DES and bare-metal stents and 3 nonrandomized comparisons between DES and CABG, with no properly randomized trial. Meta-analysis for DES-based PCI showed, at the longest follow-up, rates of 16.5% (11.7%-21.3%) MACE, 5.5% (3.4%-7.7%) death, and 6.5% (3.7%-9.2%) TVR. Comparison of DES versus bare-metal stent disclosed adjusted odds ratios for MACE of 0.34 (0.16-0.71), and DES versus CABG showed adjusted odds ratios for MACE plus stroke of 0.46 (0.24-0.90). Meta-regression showed that disease location predicted MACE (P = .001) and TVR (P = .020), whereas high-risk features predicted death (P = .027). Clinical studies report apparently favorable early and midterm results in selected patients with ULM. However, given their limitations in validity and the inherent risk for DES thrombosis, results from randomized trials are still needed to definitely establish the role of DES implantation instead of the reference treatment, surgery.

We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of high-dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The use of HDB tirofiban in the catheterization laboratory is controversial. In particular, in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing PCI, there is no evidence that tirofiban administered in the catheterization laboratory is superior to heparin alone. This finding probably reflects the suboptimal platelet inhibition when tirofiban is employed at RESTORE (Randomized Efficacy Study of Tirofiban for Outcomes and Restenosis) regimen. A total of 202 patients (mean age 69 ± 8 years; 137 males [68%]) undergoing high-risk PCI, pretreated with thienopyridines, were consecutively randomized to HDB tirofiban (25 μg/kg/3 min, and infusion of 0.15 μg/kg/min for 24 to 48 h) or placebo immediately before the procedure and then followed for a median time of 185 days (range 45 to 324 days) for the occurrence of the primary composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and bailout use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The cumulative incidence of the primary end point was 35% and 20% in placebo and HDB tirofiban groups, respectively (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.88; p = 0.01). This difference was mainly due to the reduction of myocardial infarction and bailout use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, with no significant effect on TVR or death. The safety profile did not differ between tirofiban and placebo. The use of tirofiban, when administered at HDB, is safe and significantly reduces the incidence of ischemic/thrombotic complications during high-risk PCI.

Several physiological and pathophysiological stimuli or drugs modulate endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) mobilization. Moreover, levels of circulating EPCs predict cardiovascular risk and left ventricular remodelling after myocardial infarction. Nevertheless, our understanding in this field is complicated by lack of an unequivocal definition of EPCs, thus limiting their clinical applications. This review summarizes current knowledge and uncertainties on EPC characterization and mobilization in the attempt to define their role in the management of cardiovascular diseases.

<h3>Abstract</h3> <b>Objective</b> To appraise multiple systematic reviews on the same clinical topic, focusing on predictors and correlates of quality of reporting of meta-analysis (QUOROM) scores. <b>Design</b> Case study. <b>Setting</b> Reviews providing at least individual quantitative estimates on role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy. <b>Data sources</b> PubMed, the database of abstracts of reviews of effects, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (updated March 2005). <b>Main outcome measures</b> Funding, compliance with the QUOROM checklist, scores on the Oxman and Guyatt quality index, and authors9 recommendations. <b>Results</b> 10 systematic reviews, published August 2003 to March 2005, were included. Nine pooled events despite heterogeneity and five recommended routine use of acetylcysteine, whereas the remaining studies called for further research. Compliance with the 18 items on the QUOROM checklist was relatively high (median 16, range 11 to 17), although shorter manuscripts had significantly lower scores (R = 0.73; P = 0.016). Reviewers who reported previous not for profit funding were more likely to score higher on the Oxman and Guyatt quality index. No association was found between QUOROM and Oxman and Guyatt scores (R = −0.06; P = 0.86), mainly because of greater emphasis of the Oxman and Guyatt scores on the appraisal of bias in selection and validity assessment (inadequate in five reviews). <b>Conclusions</b> Multiple systematic reviews on the same clinical topic varied in quality of reporting and recommendations. Longer manuscripts and previous not for profit funding were associated with higher quality.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of platelet reactivity (PR) in predicting the response to treatment and outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention assisted by glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibition. There is limited prognostic information on the role of spontaneous or drug-modulated PR in STEMI patients. The PR was measured with Platelet Function Analyzer (PFA)-100 and light transmission aggregometry (LTA) using adenosine diphosphate as agonist in 70 consecutive STEMI patients at entry (PR-T0), 10 min after GP IIb/IIIa bolus (PR-T1), and discharge (PR-T2) and in 30 stable angina (SA) patients (PR-SA). Complete platelet inhibition (CPI) was based on closure time >300 s by PFA-100 and percentage inhibition of platelet aggregation >95% by LTA. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and angiographic responses to treatment during 1-year follow-up were collected. According to both techniques, PR-T0 was higher than: 1) PR-T2 and PR-SA; 2) in those without CPI at T1; and 3) in patients with final Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade <3. The PR-T0 assessed with PFA-100 correlated with: 1) corrected TIMI frame count (r = −0.6, p < 0.001); 2) ST-segment resolution (r = 45, p < 0.001); and 3) creatine kinase-MB (r = −0.47, p < 0.001). At 1 year, patients with high PR-T0 showed an adjusted 5- to 11-fold increase in the risk of death, reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio [HR] 11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5 to 78 [p = 0.02] in PFA-100; HR 5.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 23 [p = 0.03] in LTA). The PR at entry affects response to GP IIb/IIIa inhibition, mechanical treatment, and long-term outcome in STEMI patients undergoing primary intervention.

The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of stem cell mobilization by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on myocardial regeneration on the basis of a synthesis of the data generated by randomized, controlled clinical trials of G-CSF after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Experimental studies and early-phase clinical trials suggest that stem cell mobilization by G-CSF may have a positive impact on cardiac regeneration after AMI. The role of G-CSF in patients with AMI remains unclear considering the inconsistent results of several clinical trials.For our analysis, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings from major cardiology meetings, and Internet-based sources of information on clinical trials in cardiology from January 2003 to August 2007 served as sources. Two reviewers independently identified studies and abstracted data on sample size, baseline characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Eligible studies were randomized trials with stem cell mobilization by G-CSF after reperfused AMI that reported data regarding the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at follow-up.Ten trials using stem cell mobilization by G-CSF, including 445 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Significant improvement in LVEF at follow-up was observed in both the G-CSF and placebo groups. Compared with placebo, stem cell mobilization by G-CSF did not enhance the improvement of LVEF at follow-up (mean difference 1.32% [95% confidence interval -1.52 to 4.16; p = 0.36]). Moreover, the mean difference of reduction of infarct size between the treatment and placebo groups was -0.15 (95% confidence interval -0.38 to 0.07, p = 0.17).Cumulatively, available evidence does not support a beneficial effect of G-CSF in patients with AMI after reperfusion.

The SYNTAX score (SXscore), an anatomical-based scoring tool reflecting the complexity of coronary anatomy, has established itself as an important long-term prognostic factor in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The incorporation of clinical factors may further augment the utility of the SXscore to longer-term risk stratify the individual patient for clinical outcomes.Patient-level merged data from >6000 patients in seven contemporary coronary stent trials was used to develop a logistic regression model-the Logistic Clinical SXscore-to predict 1-year risk for all-cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A core model (composed of the SXscore, age, creatinine clearance, and left ventricular ejection fraction) and an extended model [incorporating the core model and six additional (best performing) clinical variables] were developed and validated in a cross-validation procedure. The core model demonstrated a substantial improvement in predictive ability for 1-year all-cause death compared with the SXscore in isolation [area under the receiver operator curve (AUC): core model: 0.753, SXscore: 0.660]. A minor incremental benefit of the extended model was shown (AUC: 0.791). Consequently the core model alone was retained in the final the Logistic Clinical SXscore model. Validation plots confirmed the model predictions to be well calibrated. For 1-year MACE, the addition of clinical variables did not improve the predictive ability of the SXscore, secondary to the SXscore being the predominant determinant of all-cause revascularization.The Logistic Clinical SXscore substantially enhances the prediction of 1-year mortality after PCI compared with the SXscore, and allows for an accurate personalized assessment of patient risk.

This study sought to investigate the ischemic and bleeding outcomes of patients fulfilling high bleeding risk (HBR) criteria who were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (E-ZES) or bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation followed by an abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration for stable or unstable coronary artery disease.DES instead of BMS use remains controversial in HBR patients, in whom long-term DAPT poses safety concerns.The ZEUS (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates) is a multinational, randomized single-blinded trial that randomized among others, in a stratified manner, 828 patients fulfilling pre-defined clinical or biochemical HBR criteria-including advanced age, indication to oral anticoagulants or other pro-hemorrhagic medications, history of bleeding and known anemia-to receive E-ZES or BMS followed by a protocol-mandated 30-day DAPT regimen. The primary endpoint of the study was the 12-month major adverse cardiovascular event rate, consisting of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.Compared with patients without, those with 1 or more HBR criteria had worse outcomes, owing to higher ischemic and bleeding risks. Among HBR patients, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 22.6% of the E-ZES and 29% of the BMS patients (hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 0.98; p = 0.033), driven by lower myocardial infarction (3.5% vs. 10.4%; p < 0.001) and target vessel revascularization (5.9% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.005) rates in the E-ZES arm. The composite of definite or probable stent thrombosis was significantly reduced in E-ZES recipients, whereas bleeding events did not differ between stent groups.Among HBR patients with stable or unstable coronary artery disease, E-ZES implantation provides superior efficacy and safety as compared with conventional BMS. (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates [ZEUS]; NCT01385319).

AimsTo evaluate safety and effectiveness of early generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and to determine whether benefits and risks vary over time.

This study sought to evaluate the impact of SYNTAX score (SXscore), and compare its performance in isolation and combination with the PAMI (The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study) score, for the prediction of 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Patients with STEMI were excluded from the original SYNTAX score (SXscore) algorithm. Therefore, the utility of using the SXscore in this patient group remains undefined.SXscore was calculated retrospectively in 807 patients with STEMI enrolled in the randomized STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) clinical trials. Clinical outcomes of all-cause death, reinfarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SX(LOW) ≤ 9 (n = 311), 9 < SX(MID) ≤ 16 (n = 234), SX(HIGH) >16 (n = 262).At 1-year follow-up, all clinical outcomes including mortality, mortality/reinfarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization), and definite, definite/probable, and any stent thrombosis were all significantly higher in patients in the highest SXscore tertile. SXscore was identified as an independent predictor of mortality, MACE, and stent thrombosis out to 1-year follow-up. The combination SYNTAX-PAMI score led to a net reclassification improvement of 15.7% and 4.6% for mortality and MACE, respectively. The C-statistics for the SXscore, PAMI score, and the combined SYNTAX-PAMI score were 0.65, 0.81, and 0.73 for 1-year mortality, and 0.68, 0.64, and 0.69 for 1-year MACE, respectively.SXscore does have a role in the risk stratification of patients with STEMI having primary percutaneous coronary intervention; however, this ability can be improved through a combination with clinical variables. (Multicentre 2×2 Factorial Randomised Study Comparing Tirofiban Versus Abciximab and SES Versus BMS in AMI; NCT00229515).

Background Clopidogrel is beneficial after ACS. Recent data suggest the superiority of prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel. However, there is no comparison of prasugrel vs. ticagrelor. We performed an adjusted indirect meta-analysis comparing prasugrel vs. ticagrelor for acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). Methods Randomized trials were searched in PubMed. The primary end-point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. Odds ratios (OR) were computed (95% confidence intervals). Results Three trial (32,893) patients were included. Overall, either prasugrel or ticagrelor appeared significantly superior to clopidogrel for the 12-month risk of death, MI or stroke (OR=0.83 [0.77–0.89], p<0.001), death (OR=0.83 [0.74–0.93], p=0.001), MI (OR=0.79 [0.73–0.86], p<0.001), and stent thrombosis (OR=0.61 [0.51–0.74], p<0.001), without any significant difference in stroke or major bleeding (both p>0.05), despite more frequent drug discontinuation (OR=1.12 [1.05–1.19], p<0.001). Head-to-head comparison of prasugrel vs. ticagrelor showed no significant differences in overall death, MI, stroke, or their composite (all p>0.05). Prasugrel was associated with a significantly lower risk of stent thrombosis (OR=0.64 [0.43–0.93], p=0.020). Ticagrelor was associated with a significantly lower risk of any major bleeding (OR=1.43 [1.10–1.85], p=0.007), and major bleeding associated with bypass grafting (OR=4.30 [1.73–10.6], p=0.002). However, the more clinically relevant risk of major bleeding not related to bypass surgery was similar with either prasugrel or ticagrelor (OR=1.06 [0.77–1.45], p=0.34). Conclusions Prasugrel and ticagrelor are superior to clopidogrel for ACS. Head-to-head comparison suggests similar efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor, but prasugrel appears more protective from stent thrombosis, while causing more bleedings.

It remains unclear whether radial access (RA), compared with femoral access (FA), mitigates the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI).The authors assessed the incidence of AKI in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in the MATRIX-Access (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox) trial.Among 8,404 patients, 194 (2.3%) were excluded due to missing creatinine values, no or an incomplete coronary angiogram, or previous dialysis. The primary AKI-MATRIX endpoint was AKI, defined as an absolute (>0.5 mg/dl) or a relative (>25%) increase in serum creatinine (sCr).AKI occurred in 634 patients (15.4%) with RA and 712 patients (17.4%) with FA (odds ratio [OR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77 to 0.98; p = 0.0181). A >25% sCr increase was noted in 633 patients (15.4%) with RA and 710 patients (17.3%) with FA (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.98; p = 0.0195), whereas a >0.5 mg/dl absolute sCr increase occurred in 175 patients (4.3%) with RA versus 223 patients (5.4%) with FA (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.95; p = 0.0131). By implementing the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria, AKI was 3-fold less prevalent and trended lower with RA (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.03; p = 0.090), with stage 3 AKI occurring in 28 patients (0.68%) with RA versus 46 patients (1.12%) with FA (p = 0.0367). Post-intervention dialysis was needed in 6 patients (0.15%) with RA and 14 patients (0.34%) with FA (p = 0.0814). Stratified analyses suggested greater benefit with RA than FA in patients at greater risk for AKI.In ACS patients who underwent invasive management, RA was associated with a reduced risk of AKI compared with FA. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).

<h2>Summary</h2><h3>Background</h3> The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of coronary artery disease have been assessed in several randomised trials. However, none of these trials were powered to assess the safety and efficacy of DES in women because only a small proportion of recruited participants were women. We therefore investigated the safety and efficacy of DES in female patients during long-term follow-up. <h3>Methods</h3> We pooled patient-level data for female participants from 26 randomised trials of DES and analysed outcomes according to stent type (bare-metal stents, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES). The primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction. The secondary safety endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy endpoint was target-lesion revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. <h3>Findings</h3> Of 43 904 patients recruited in 26 trials of DES, 11 557 (26·3%) were women (mean age 67·1 years [SD 10·6]). 1108 (9·6%) women received bare-metal stents, 4171 (36·1%) early-generation DES, and 6278 (54·3%) newer-generation DES. At 3 years, estimated cumulative incidence of the composite of death or myocardial infarction occurred in 132 (12·8%) women in the bare-metal stent group, 421 (10·9%) in the early-generation DES group, and 496 (9·2%) in the newer-generation DES group (p=0·001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 13 (1·3%), 79 (2·1%), and 66 (1·1%) women in the bare-metal stent, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES groups, respectively (p=0·01). The use of DES was associated with a significant reduction in the 3 year rates of target-lesion revascularisation (197 [18·6%] women in the bare-metal stent group, 294 [7·8%] in the early-generation DES group, and 330 [6·3%] in the newer-generation DES group, p<0·0001). Results did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics in the multivariable analysis. <h3>Interpretation</h3> The use of DES in women is more effective and safe than is use of bare-metal stents during long-term follow-up. Newer-generation DES are associated with an improved safety profile compared with early-generation DES, and should therefore be thought of as the standard of care for percutaneous coronary revascularisation in women. <h3>Funding</h3> Women in Innovation Initiative of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

The aim of this study was to compare, in a large all-comers registry, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis.Percutaneous coronary intervention with DES implantation in ULMCA has been shown to be a feasible and safe approach at midterm clinical follow-up.All consecutive patients with ULMCA stenosis treated by PCI with DES versus CABG were analyzed in this multinational registry. A propensity score analysis was performed to adjust for baseline differences in the overall cohort.In total 2,775 patients were included: 1,874 were treated with PCI versus 901 with CABG. At 1,295 (interquartile range: 928 to 1,713) days, there were no differences, at the adjusted analysis, in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accidents, and myocardial infarction (MI) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 1.42; p = 0.47), mortality (adjusted HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.55; p = 0.32), or composite endpoint of death and MI (adjusted HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.64; p = 0.11). An advantage of CABG over PCI was observed in the composite secondary endpoint of MACCE (adjusted HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.33 to 2.03; p < 0.0001), driven exclusively by the higher incidence of target vessel revascularization with PCI.In our multinational all-comers registry, no difference was observed in the occurrence of death, cerebrovascular accidents, and MI between PCI and CABG. An advantage of CABG over PCI was observed in the incidence of MACCE, driven by the higher incidence of target vessel revascularization with PCI.

This study sought to assess device-specific outcomes after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS), zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stents (ZES-S), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), or everolimus-eluting stents (EES) (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, California) in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Few studies have directly compared second-generation drug-eluting stents with each other or with BMS. We randomized 2,013 patients to BMS, ZES-S, PES, or EES implantation. At 30 days, each stent group received up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy. The key efficacy endpoint was the 2-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) including any death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization, whereas the cumulative rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) was the key safety endpoint. Clinical follow-up at 2 years was complete for 99.7% of patients. The MACE rate was lowest in EES (19.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.0 to 22.8), highest in BMS (32.1%; 95% CI: 28.1 to 36.3), and intermediate in PES (26.2%; 95% CI: 22.5 to 30.2) and ZES-S (27.8%; 95% CI: 24.1 to 31.9) groups (chi-square test = 18.9, p = 0.00029). The 2-year incidence of ST in the EES group (1%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.2) was similar to that in the ZES-S group (1.4%; 95% CI: 0.7 to 2.8), whereas it was lower compared with the PES (4.6%, 95% CI: 3.1 to 6.8) and BMS (3.6%; 95% CI: 2.4 to 5.6) groups (chi-square = 16.9; p = 0.0001). Our study shows that cumulative MACE rate, encompassing both safety and efficacy endpoints, was lowest for EES, highest for BMS, and intermediate for PES and ZES-S groups. EES outperformed BMS also with respect to the safety endpoints with regard to definite or probable and definite, probable, or possible ST. (PROlonging Dual antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY [PRODIGY]; NCT00611286)

Stent underexpansion is a risk factor for in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis. Existing techniques to optimize stent expansion are sometimes ineffective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of Excimer Laser Coronary Angioplasty (ELCA) in improving stent expansion when high-pressure non-compliant balloon inflation was ineffective. ECLA ablation was performed at high energy during contrast injection and only within the underexpanded stent. The primary endpoint of successful laser dilatation was defined as an increase of at least 1 mm2 in minimal stent cross-sectional area (MSA) on IVUS or an increase of at least 20% in minimal stent diameter (MSD) by QCA, following redilatation with the same non-compliant balloon that had been unsuccessful prior to ELCA. Secondary endpoints were cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization. Between June 2009 and November 2011, 28 patients with an underexpanded stent despite high-pressure balloon inflation were included. The mean laser catheter size was 1.2 ± 0.4 (range 0.9-2.0 mm) and a mean of 62 ± 12 mJ/mm2 at 62 ± 21hertz were required for optimal expansion. Laser-assisted stent dilatation was successful in 27 cases (96.4%), with an improvement in MSD by QCA (1.6 ± 0.6 mm at baseline to 2.6 ± 0.6 mm post-procedure) and MSA by IVUS (3.5 ± 1.1 mm2 to 7.1 ± 1.9 mm2). Periprocedural MI occurred in 7.1%, transient slow-flow in 3.6% and ST elevation in 3.6%. During follow-up, there were no MIs, there was 1 cardiac-death, and TLR occurred in 6.7%. The ELLEMENT study confirms the feasibility of ELCA with contrast injection to improve stent underexpansion in undilatable stented lesions.

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and feasibility of transradial coronary catheterization across the whole spectrum of Allen test (AT) results. Whether the AT can predict ischemic complications after transradial access (TRA) is controversial. No prospective assessment exists on the safety and feasibility of TRA across the whole spectrum of AT results. From October 2007 to June 2009, a total of 942 patients undergoing TRA were screened, and 203 were recruited, of whom 83, 60, and 60 had normal, intermediate, and abnormal AT results, respectively. Patients underwent serial assessments of thumb capillary lactate (the primary endpoint), thumb plethysmography, and ulnar frame count to investigate the patency of the ulnopalmar arches, as well as handgrip strength tests to examine the isometric strength of the hand and forearm muscles and discomfort ratings. Lactate did not differ among the 3 study groups after the procedure (1.85 ± 0.93 mmol/l in patients with normal AT results, 1.85 ± 0.66 mmol/l in those with intermediate results, and 1.97 ± 0.71 mmol/l in those with abnormal results; p = 0.59) or at other time points during the study. Plethysmographic readings showed improvements of ulnopalmar collateralization in patients with non-normal AT results, whereas the ulnar frame count was decreased, suggesting enhanced ulnar flow, in patients with abnormal AT results after TRA. Handgrip strength test results and discomfort ratings did not differ across AT groups. No hand ischemic complications occurred. This study provides proof of concept for a paradigm shift in cardiovascular intervention, suggesting the safety and feasibility of TRA across the whole spectrum of AT results. Given the multiple implications of our findings, a broader clinical validation is needed. (Predictive Value of Allen’s Test Result in Elective Patients Undergoing Coronary Catheterization Through Radial Approach [RADAR]; NCT00597324)

We sought to determine whether the optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after drug-eluting stent (DES) placement varies according to clinical presentation.We performed an individual patient data pairwise and network meta-analysis comparing short-term (≤6-months) versus long-term (1-year) DAPT as well as 3-month vs. 6-month vs 1-year DAPT. The primary study outcome was the 1-year composite risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST). Six trials were included in which DAPT after DES consisted of aspirin and clopidogrel. Among 11 473 randomized patients 6714 (58.5%) had stable CAD and 4758 (41.5%) presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the majority of whom (67.0%) had unstable angina. In ACS patients, ≤6-month DAPT was associated with non-significantly higher 1-year rates of MI or ST compared with 1-year DAPT (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.48, 95% Confidence interval (CI) 0.98-2.22; P = 0.059), whereas in stable patients rates of MI and ST were similar between the two DAPT strategies (HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.65-1.35; P = 0.71; Pinteraction = 0.09). By network meta-analysis, 3-month DAPT, but not 6-month DAPT, was associated with higher rates of MI or ST in ACS, whereas no significant differences were apparent in stable patients. Short DAPT was associated with lower rates of major bleeding compared with 1-year DAPT, irrespective of clinical presentation. All-cause mortality was not significantly different with short vs. long DAPT in both patients with stable CAD and ACS.Optimal DAPT duration after DES differs according to clinical presentation. In the present meta-analysis, despite the fact that most enrolled ACS patients were relatively low risk, 3-month DAPT was associated with increased ischaemic risk, whereas 3-month DAPT appeared safe in stable CAD. Prolonged DAPT increases bleeding regardless of clinical presentation. Further study is required to identify the optimal duration of DAPT after DES in individual patients based on their relative ischaemic and bleeding risks.

Working Group on ThrombosisOświadczenie: Wytyczne ESC reprezentują stanowisko tego towarzystwa i powstały po dokładnym uwzględnieniu wiedzy naukowej i medycznej oraz dowodów dostępnych w

The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome after elective percutaneous coronary intervention in low-risk patients screened for aspirin and/or clopidogrel responsiveness in the 3T/2R (Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel) trial. The impact of aspirin and/or clopidogrel poor response on long-term outcome is debated. Aspirin and clopidogrel response was measured with the VerifyNow system aspirin and P2Y12 assays. After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), death, stroke, and myocardial infarction were assessed up to 1 year. Overall, 1,277 patients were screened, and 826 (65%) were treated with PCI. In all, 124 patients were found to be aspirin poor responders, and there were 179 clopidogrel poor responders (totally, 278 poor responders). The 1-year end point was significantly higher in poor responders as compared to full responders (15.8% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.002), which is principally due to more myocardial infarction occurrence. At multivariable analysis, clopidogrel poor response emerged as an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 1.28). Receiver-operator characteristic analysis identifies ≤23 of percentage of platelet inhibition and ≥208 of P2Y12reactivity units as optimal cut offs to predict 1-year end point. Excluding periprocedural events, also peri-PCI myocardial infarction, which is strongly related to aspirin/clopidogrel poor response, was an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.25, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 1.37). Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration reduces this risk in poor responders (21.2% vs. 34.7%, p = 0.02), but not in full responders (6.3% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.8). Poor response to clopidogrel is an independent predictor of periprocedural myocardial infarction and worse 1-year outcome in low-risk patients undergoing PCI, whereas poor response to aspirin failed to predict a worse outcome. Contrary to what was observed in poor responders, glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitor therapy failed to provide a benefit in aspirin and/or clopidogrel full responders.

Although some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have suggested that prolonged dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) may be associated with increased mortality, the mechanistic underpinnings of this association remain unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the associations among bleeding, mortality, and DAPT duration after drug-eluting stent implantation in a meta-analysis of RCTs. RCTs comparing different DAPT durations after drug-eluting stent placement were sought through the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases and the proceedings of international meetings. Deaths were considered possibly bleeding related if occurring within 1 year of the episodes of bleeding. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. Secondary analysis was performed in a modified intention-to-treat population in which events occurring when all patients were on DAPT were excluded. Individual patient data were obtained for 6 RCTs, and aggregate data were available for 12 RCTs. Patients with bleeding had significantly higher rates of mortality compared with those without, and in a time-adjusted multivariate analysis, bleeding was an independent predictor of mortality occurring within 1 year of the bleeding episode (hazard ratio: 6.93; 95% confidence interval: 4.53 to 10.60; p < 0.0001). Shorter DAPT was associated with lower rates of all-cause death compared with longer DAPT (hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.00; p = 0.05), which was driven by lower rates of bleeding-related deaths with shorter DAPT compared with prolonged DAPT (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% confidence interval: 0.43 to 0.99; p = 0.04). Mortality unrelated to bleeding was comparable between the 2 groups. Similar results were apparent in the modified intention-to-treat population. Bleeding was strongly associated with the occurrence of mortality within 1 year after the bleeding event. Shorter compared with longer DAPT was associated with lower risk for bleeding-related death, a finding that may underlie the lower all-cause mortality with shorter DAPT in the RCTs of different DAPT durations after DES.