Search

Backgroundwhile the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following coronary angioplasty for chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) recommended by the European Society of Cardiology has decreased over the last decade, little is known about the adherence to those guidelines in clinical practice in France.AimTo analyze the real duration of DAPT post coronary angioplasty in CCS, as well as the factors affecting this duration.MethodsBetween 2014 and 2019, 8.836 percutaneous coronary interventions for CCS from the France-PCI registry were evaluated, with 1 year follow up, after exclusion of patients receiving oral anticoagulants, procedures performed within one year of an acute coronary syndrome, and repeat angioplasty.ResultsPost-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) DAPT duration was > 12 months for 53.1% of patients treated for CCS; 30.5% had a DAPT between 7 and 12 months, and 16.4% a DAPT ≤ 6 months. Patients with L-DAPT (>12 months) were at higher ischemic risk [25.0% of DAPT score ≥2 vs. 18.8% DAPT score ≥2 in S&I-DAPT group (≤12 months)]. The most commonly used P2Y12 inhibitor was clopidogrel (82.2%). The prescription of ticagrelor increased over the period.Conclusionspost-PCI DAPT duration in CCS was higher than international recommendations in the France PCI registry between 2014 and 2019. More than half of the angioplasty performed for CCS are followed by a DAPT > 12 months. Ischemic risk assessment influences the duration of DAPT. This risk is probably overestimated nowadays, leading to a prolongation of DAPT beyond the recommended durations, thus increasing the bleeding risk.

2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation

Monitoring vaccine safety is a complex and shared responsibility. It can be carried out in many ways, one of which is the reporting of individual cases of adverse reactions thought to be due to vaccination. The task is difficult because ascribing causality to an individual case report is fraught with challenges. A standardized evaluation instrument - known as the causality assessment form - was therefore developed for use by an expert advisory committee to facilitate the process. By following the several sections in this form, the members of the committee are taken through series of points to establish causality. These points include the basic criteria for causation such as biological plausibility, the time elapsed between the vaccine administration and the onset of the adverse event, and whether other factors (drugs, chemicals or underlying disease) could account for the adverse symptoms. The form concludes with consensus assessment of causality, a commentary about the assessment, and advice for further study or follow-up. This method of assessing the more serious cases of adverse reaction reported to vaccination has proven useful in evaluating ongoing safety of vaccines in Canada. Through analyses such as this, new signals can be identified and investigated further.