Search

Background: It remains unclear whether P2Y 12 monotherapy, especially clopidogrel, following short-duration dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is associated with favorable outcomes in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Therefore, this study analyzed the efficacy and safety of P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel (78%), in complex PCI following short-term DAPT. Methods: The post-hoc analysis of the SMART-CHOICE trial involving 2,993 patients included 498 cases of complex PCIs, defined by at least one of the following features: 3 vessels treated, ≥ 3 stents implanted, ≥ 3 lesions treated, bifurcation with ≥ 2 stents implanted, and a total stent length of ≥ 60 mm. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The primary safety endpoint included bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2 to 5. Results: Complex PCI group had a higher risk of MACCE (4.0% vs. 2.3%, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05–2.89, p = 0.033) and a similar risk of BARC types 2–5 bleeding (2.6% vs. 2.6%, HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.56–1.86, p = 0.939) compared with those without complex PCIs. Patients undergoing complex PCIs, followed by P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy and 12 months of DAPT exhibited similar rates of MACCE (3.8% vs. 4.2%, HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.38–2.21, p = 0.853). Conclusions: P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, following 3 months of DAPT did not increase ischemic events in patients with complex PCIs.

Background: Although the safety and efficacy of left atrial (LA) appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients have been well documented in randomized controlled trials and real-world experience, there are limited data in the literature about the impact of LAAC on cardiac remodeling. The aim of the study was to examine the impact of LAAC on cardiac functional and structural remodeling in NVAF patients. Methods: Between March 2014 and November 2016, 47 NVAF patients who underwent LAAC were included in this study (LAAC group). A control group (non-LAAC group) was formed from 141 NVAF patients without LAAC using propensity score matching. The difference-in-difference analysis was used to evaluate the difference in cardiac remodeling between the two groups at baseline and follow-up evaluations. Results: The LAAC group had a larger increase in LA dimension, volume and volume index than the non-LAAC group (+3.9 mm, p = 0.001; +9.7 mL, p = 0.006 and +5.9 mL/m2, p = 0.011, respectively). Besides, a significant increase in E and E/e’ ratio was also observed in the LAAC group (+14.6 cm/s, p = 0.002 and +2.3, p = 0.028, respectively). Compared with the non-LAAC group, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and fractional shortening decreased in LAAC patients, but were statistically insignificant (–3.5%, p = 0.109 and –2.0%, p = 0.167, respectively). Conclusions: There were significant increases in LA size and LV filling pressure among NVAF patients after LAAC. These impacts of LAAC on cardiac functional and structural remodeling may have some clinical implications that need to be addressed in future studies.