Search

Antithrombotic therapy after cardiac percutaneous interventions is key for the prevention of thrombotic events but is inevitably associated with increased bleeding, proportional to the number, duration, and potency of the antithrombotic agents used. Bleeding complications have important clinical implications, which in some cases may outweigh the expected benefit of reducing thrombotic events. Because the response to antithrombotic agents varies widely among patients, there has been a relentless effort toward the identification of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR), in whom modulation of antithrombotic therapy may be needed to optimize the balance between safety and efficacy. Among patients undergoing cardiac percutaneous interventions, recent advances in technology have allowed for strategies of de-escalation to reduce bleeding without compromising efficacy, and HBR patients are expected to benefit the most from such approaches. Guidelines do not extensively expand upon the topic of de-escalation strategies of antithrombotic therapy in HBR patients. In this review, we discuss the evidence and provide practical recommendations on optimal antithrombotic therapy in HBR patients undergoing various cardiac percutaneous interventions., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Galli has received consulting fees or honoraria from Terumo, outside the present work. Dr Andreotti has received speaker or consultancy fees from Amgen, Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Servier, outside the present work. Dr Capodanno has received personal honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Terumo; and payment to his institution from Medtronic, outside the present work. Dr Valgimigli has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Universität Basel | Dept. Klinische Forschung, Bristol-Myers Squibb SA, Medscape, Biotronik, and Novartis, outside the submitted work; and grants and personal fees from Terumo. Dr Mehran has received institutional research payments from Abbott, Abiomed, Affluent Medical, Alleviant Medical, Amgen, AM-Pharma, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, AtriCure Inc., Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Cytosorbents, Daiichi-Sankyo, Duke, Element Science, Faraday, Humacyte, Idorsia, I-Laser, Janssen, Magenta, MedAlliance, Medscape, Mediasphere, Medtelligence, Medtronic, MJH Healthcare, Novartis, OrbusNeich, Penumbra, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, Protembis, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave, Transverse Medical, Vivasure, and Zoll; has received personal fees from Affluent Medical, the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Daiichi-Sankyo Brasil, E.R. Squibb & Sons, Esperion Science/Innovative Biopharma, Europa Group/Boston Scientific, Gaffney Events, Educational Trust, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, J-CalC, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Vectura, VoxMedia, IQVIA, McVeigh Global, Overcome, Primer Healthcare of New Jersey, Radcliffe, SL Solutions, TARSUS Cardiology, and WebMD, outside the submitted work; owns equity (<1%) in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, ControlRad (via her spouse); and has received no fees from the American Medical Association (Scientific Advisory Board) and the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (Women in Innovations Committee Member); has served on the faculty of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation; and has received honoraria from JAMA Cardiology (Associate Editor) and the American College of Cardiology (Board of Trustees Member, Member Clinical Trials Research Program). Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Faraday, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Vectura, outside the submitted work; and his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Faraday, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Elderly patients diagnosed with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a growing demographic population. These patients typically present more comorbidities and experience poorer outcomes compared to younger patients. Furthermore, they are less frequently subjected to revascularization procedures and are less likely to receive evidence-based medications in both the short and long-term periods. Assessing frailty is crucial in elderly patients with ACS because it can influence management decisions, as well as risk stratification and prognosis. Indeed, treatment decisions should consider geriatric syndromes, frailty, polypharmacy, sarcopenia, nutritional deficits, prevalence of comorbidities, thrombotic risk, and, at the same time, an increased risk of bleeding. Rigorous clinical assessments, clear revascularization criteria, and tailored approaches to antithrombotic therapy are essential for guiding personalized treatment decisions in these individuals. Assessing frailty helps healthcare providers identify patients who may benefit from targeted interventions to improve their outcomes and quality of life. Elderly individuals who experience ACS remain significantly underrepresented and understudied in randomized controlled trials. For this reason, the occurrence of ACS in the elderly continues to be a particularly complex issue in clinical practice, and one that clinicians increasingly have to address, given the general ageing of populations. This review aims to address the complex aspects of elderly patients with ACS to help clinicians make therapeutic decisions when faced with such situations.

Beta blockers (BBs) play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of life and extending the survival of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Initiating the therapy at low doses and gradually titrating the dose upwards is recommended to ensure therapeutic efficacy while mitigating potential adverse effects. Vigilant monitoring for signs of drug intolerance is necessary, with dose adjustments as required. The management of older HF patients requires a case-centered approach, taking into account individual comorbidities, functional status, and frailty. Older adults, however, are often underrepresented in randomized clinical trials, leading to some uncertainty in management strategies as patients with HF in clinical practice are older than those enrolled in trials. The present article performs a scoping review of the past 25 years of published literature on BBs in older HF patients, focusing on age, outcomes, and tolerability. Twelve studies (eight randomized-controlled and four observational) encompassing 26,426 patients were reviewed. The results indicate that BBs represent a viable treatment for older HFrEF patients, offering benefits in symptom management, cardiac function, and overall outcomes. Their role in HF with preserved EF, however, remains uncertain. Further research is warranted to refine treatment strategies and address specific aspects in older adults, including proper dosing, therapeutic adherence, and tolerability.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents a highly heterogeneous clinical syndrome affected in its development and progression by many comorbidities. The left ventricular diastolic dysfunction may be a manifestation of various combinations of cardiovascular, metabolic, pulmonary, renal, and geriatric conditions. Thus, in addition to treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in all patients, the most effective method of improving clinical outcomes may be therapy tailored to each patient's clinical profile. To better outline a phenotype-based approach for the treatment of HFpEF, in this joint position paper, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Hypertension Society, have developed an algorithm to identify the most common HFpEF phenotypes and identify the evidence-based treatment strategy for each, while taking into account the complexities of multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Coronary artery revascularisation can be performed surgically or percutaneously. Surgery is associated with higher procedural risk and longer recovery than percutaneous interventions, but with long-term reduction of recurrent cardiac events. For many patients with obstructive coronary artery disease in need of revascularisation, surgical or percutaneous intervention is indicated on the basis of clinical and anatomical reasons or personal preferences. Medical therapy is a crucial accompaniment to coronary revascularisation, and data suggest that, in some subsets of patients, medical therapy alone might achieve similar results to coronary revascularisation. Most revascularisation data are based on prevalently White, non-elderly, male populations in high-income countries; robust data in women, older adults, and racial and other minorities, and from low-income and middle-income countries, are urgently needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests. MG receives research grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health and Research and the National Institute of Health. FA reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer, and Daiichi-Sankyo. TK receives research grants from ABBOT and Boston Scientific. There has been no funding or payment directed towards this Review or the authors' decision to submit for publication., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Composite endpoints are pivotal when assessing rare outcomes over relatively short follow-ups. Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation to optimal medical therapy (OMT) in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) patients included both hard and soft outcomes in their primary endpoint, with periprocedural myocardial infarctions (MIs) systematically allocated to the PCI arm. We meta-analyzed the above RCTs for composite hard endpoints, with and without periprocedural MIs., Evidence Acquisition: This study is registered in PROSPERO CRD42020166754 and follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane Collaboration reporting. Patients had inducible ischemia, no left main disease nor severe left ventricular dysfunction., Evidence Synthesis: Six RCTs involving 10,751 patients followed for a mean of 4.4 years were included. PCI+OMT versus OMT alone was associated with no difference in the two co-primary composite endpoints of all-cause death/MI/stroke and cardiovascular death/MI including all-MIs (IRR 0.99; 95% CI 0.90-1.08 and IRR 0.95; 95% CI 0.83-1.08 respectively). After inclusion of spontaneous rather than all-MIs (i.e., excluding periprocedural MIs), the odds showed benefit of PCI+OMT for both co-primary endpoints (IRR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80-0.97, P<0.01 and IRR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P=0.01 respectively) with numbers needed to treat of 42 in both cases., Conclusions: Among CCS patients with inducible myocardial ischemia without severely reduced ejection fraction or left main disease, adding PCI to OMT reduces hard composite outcomes only after exclusion of periprocedural MIs. Continued efforts to define periprocedural MIs reproducibly, to assess their prognostic relevance and to prevent them are warranted.

The incidence of left ventricular thrombosis (LVT) after acute myocardial infarction has declined significantly in recent decades, thanks to advances in the field of revascularization and antithrombotic therapy. Despite oral anticoagulation, embolic events are the most feared complication of LVT. From a pathophysiological point of view, the development of LVT depends on Virchow's triad, that is, endothelial damage caused by myocardial infarction, blood stasis due to left ventricular dysfunction, and hyper-coagulability determined by inflammation. The diagnostic modalities of LVT include transthoracic echocardiography preferably implemented by contrast administration, and cardiac magnetic resonance. Most thrombi develop in the first 2 weeks after acute myocardial infarction, so the role of systematic screening with short to medium term repeated imaging appears limited. Vitamin K antagonists remain the cornerstone of therapy, since the effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants remains to be established. Only weak evidence supports the routine use of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy, even in high-risk patients.

Oral inhibitors of the platelet P2Y 12 receptor are indispensable in the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), improving outcomes and even reducing mortality in some studies. However, these drugs are limited by delayed absorption and suboptimal platelet inhibition at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite efforts to achieve faster and more sustained platelet inhibition, strategies such as prehospital administration, higher loading doses, and crushed formulations have not led to improved coronary reperfusion. Parenteral glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors act sooner and are more potent than oral P2Y 12 inhibitors, but their use has been limited by the increased risk of major bleeding and thrombocytopenia. Hence, there is a clinical need to refine drugs that deliver rapid, effective, yet safe platelet inhibition in the setting of STEMI. Novel parenteral antiplatelet drugs, such as cangrelor, selatogrel, and zalunfiban, have been recently developed to achieve rapid, potent antiplatelet effects while preserving hemostasis. We provide a description of currently available parenteral antiplatelet agents and of those in clinical development for prehospital administration in STEMI patients., Competing Interests: S.A.O.F.R. has nothing to declare. R.F.S. reports research grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Cytosorbents, GlyCardial Diagnostics and Thromboserin, and personal fees from Alnylam, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Chiesi, CSL Behring, HengRui, Idorsia, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Medscape, Novartis, PhaseBio, Portola, and Sanofi Aventis. F.A. reports lecture or consultancy fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo. P.C. has previously or currently been involved in research contracts, consulting, and speaker bureau or received research and educational grants from: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Abiomed, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli-Lilly, Evolva, Fiberx, Idorsia, Janssen, Merck, Myogen, Medtronic, Mitsubishi Pharma, The Medicines Company, Nycomed, Organon, Pfizer, Pharmacia, Regado, Sanofi, Searle, Servier. J.M.T.B. reports grants from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, a Dutch government institution called ZonMw. J. M. ten Berg reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, the Medicines Company, Accumetrics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, and Ferrer., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Extensive data support the superior safety without any trade-off in efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Whether DOACs may be successfully used to treat complex and fragile patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) remains to be proven. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility, anticoagulant effect, and preliminary safety/efficacy profile of edoxaban administered via PEG in patients with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulation., Methods: In this prospective, single-arm, pilot study, 12 patients with PEG and guideline-recommended indication for anticoagulation for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation were prospectively enrolled. Crushed edoxaban at approved doses was administered via PEG. Quantitative measures of edoxaban's antifactor Xa activity were performed at steady state. Thromboembolic and bleeding events were assessed at one-month follow-up., Results: Steady state edoxaban plasma levels were at therapeutic range in all patients; mean plasma concentration was 208.5 (±78.6) ng/mL. At one month follow-up, none had suffered a thromboembolic event; one developed minor bleeding, and one died from non-cardiovascular death, owing to sudden worsening of a pre-existing underlying severe condition., Conclusions: In this pilot investigation, we report for the first time that crushed edoxaban, administered at approved doses through PEG in fragile and complex patients, is feasible, results in therapeutic edoxaban concentrations, and is apparently effective and safe.

Antiplatelet therapy is considered essential for secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease. After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), temporary dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), a combination consisting of aspirin and an oral P2Y12 receptor blocker, is recommended. In the long term, this strategy results in more bleeding than antiplatelet therapy with aspirin alone. Therefore, to reduce bleeding, an increasing trend has been to keep DAPT as short as clinically acceptable, after which aspirin monotherapy is continued. Another option to diminish bleeding is to discontinue aspirin at the moment of DAPT cessation after PCI, and to continue on P2Y12 blocker monotherapy. This survey reviews the evidence on P2Y12 blocker monotherapy. Some clinical guidance will be provided on when and in whom P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy may be applied after DAPT cessation following PCI., Competing Interests: F.W.A.V. has received honoraria for consulting and presentations from AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, and Daiichi-Sankyo. K.H. has received honoraria for consulting and lectures from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi-Aventis. P.C. has received lecture fees, performed consulting, or been involved in research contracts outside the context of the present work: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli-Lilly, Evolva, Fiberx, Janssen, Merck, Myogen, Medtronic, Mitsubishi Pharma, The Medicines Company, Nycomed, Organon, Pfizer, Pharmacia, Regado, Sanofi, Searle, Servier, ViFor Pharma. J.-P.C. does not report any conflict of interest. T.C. has received consulting and lectures fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic. F.A. reports honoraria for consulting or lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: The intensity of inflammation during COVID-19 is related to adverse outcomes. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) is involved in low-density lipoprotein receptor homeostasis, with potential influence on vascular inflammation and on COVID-19 inflammatory response., Objectives: The goal of this study was to investigate the impact of PCSK9 inhibition vs placebo on clinical and laboratory outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19., Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter pilot trial, 60 patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19, with ground-glass opacity pneumonia and arterial partial oxygen pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio ≤300 mm Hg, were randomized 1:1 to receive a single 140-mg subcutaneous injection of evolocumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was death or need for intubation at 30 days. The main secondary endpoint was change in circulating interleukin (IL)-6 at 7 and 30 days from baseline., Results: Patients randomized to receive the PCSK9 inhibitor had lower rates of death or need for intubation within 30 days vs placebo (23.3% vs 53.3%, risk difference: -30%; 95% CI: -53.40% to -6.59%). Serum IL-6 across time was lower with the PCSK9 inhibitor than with placebo (30-day decline: -56% vs -21%). Patients with baseline IL-6 above the median had lower mortality with PCSK9 inhibition vs placebo (risk difference: -37.50%; 95% CI: -68.20% to -6.70%)., Conclusions: PCSK9 inhibition compared with placebo reduced the primary endpoint of death or need for intubation and IL-6 levels in severe COVID-19. Patients with more intense inflammation at randomization had better survival with PCSK9 inhibition vs placebo, indicating that inflammatory intensity may drive therapeutic benefits. (Impact of PCSK9 Inhibition on Clinical Outcome in Patients During the Inflammatory Stage of the COVID-19 [IMPACT-SIRIO 5]; NCT04941105)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was supported by the Collegium Medicum of Nicolaus Copernicus University (grant ID ZES.WL.2.2021). Dr Navarese has received speaker and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron, Bayer; and has received grants from Abbott, outside the submitted work. Dr Gurbel has received grants and personal fees from Bayer HealthCare LLC, Otitopic Inc, Amgen, Janssen, U.S. WorldMeds LLC, Instrumentation Laboratory, Haemonetics, Medicure Inc, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Hikari Dx, and Novartis; has received personal fees from UpToDate, outside the submitted work; has a patent issued (Detection of Restenosis Risk in Patients and Assessment of Cardiac Health and Thrombotic Risk in a Patient); and is an expert witness in litigation involving clopidogrel. Dr Gorog has received institutional research grants from Bayer and Bristol Myers Squibb; and has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Andreotti has received lecture/consultancy fees from Amgen, Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The first international guidance on antithrombotic therapy in the elderly came from the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis in 2015. This same group has updated its previous report on antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs for older patients with acute or chronic coronary syndromes, atrial fibrillation, or undergoing surgery or procedures typical of the elderly (transcatheter aortic valve implantation and left atrial appendage closure). The aim is to provide a succinct but comprehensive tool for readers to understand the bases of antithrombotic therapy in older patients, despite the complexities of comorbidities, comedications and uncertain ischaemic- vs. bleeding-risk balance. Fourteen updated consensus statements integrate recent trial data and other evidence, with a focus on high bleeding risk. Guideline recommendations, when present, are highlighted, as well as gaps in evidence. Key consensus points include efforts to improve medical adherence through deprescribing and polypill use; adoption of universal risk definitions for bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke and cause-specific death; multiple bleeding-avoidance strategies, ranging from gastroprotection with aspirin use to selection of antithrombotic-drug composition, dosing and duration tailored to multiple variables (setting, history, overall risk, age, weight, renal function, comedications, procedures) that need special consideration when managing older adults., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare that none received specific funding in relation to the work: ‘Acute, periprocedural and longterm antithrombotic therapy in older adults: 2022 Update by the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis’ by Felicita Andreotti, Tobias Geisler, Jean-Philippe Collet, Bruna Gigante, Diana A Gorog, Sigrun Halvorsen, Gregory YH Lip, Joao Morais, Eliano Pio Navarese, Carlo Patrono, Bianca Rocca, Andrea Rubboli, Dirk Sibbing, Robert F. Storey, Freek W.A. Verheugt, and Gemma Vilahur., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Cardiotoxic therapies, whether chemotherapeutic or antibiotic, represent a burden for patients who may need to interrupt life-saving treatment because of serious complications. Cardiotoxicity is a broad term, spanning from forms of heart failure induction, particularly left ventricular systolic dysfunction, to induction of arrhythmias. Nanotechnologies emerged decades ago. They offer the possibility to modify the profiles of potentially toxic drugs and to abolish off-target side effects thanks to more favorable pharmacokinetics and dynamics. This relatively modern science encompasses nanocarriers (e.g., liposomes, niosomes, and dendrimers) and other delivery systems applicable to real-life clinical settings. We here review selected applications of nanotechnology to the fields of pharmacology and cardio-oncology. Heart tissue-sparing co-administration of nanocarriers bound to chemotherapeutics (such as anthracyclines and platinum agents) are discussed based on recent studies. Nanotechnology applications supporting the administration of potentially cardiotoxic oncological target therapies, antibiotics (especially macrolides and fluoroquinolones), or neuroactive agents are also summarized. The future of nanotechnologies includes studies to improve therapeutic safety and to encompass a broader range of pharmacological agents. The field merits investments and research, as testified by its exponential growth.

Background: In the acute management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) bolus not followed by intravenous infusion is potentially advantageous given their fast onset and offset of action, but clinical evidence in a contemporary setting is limited., Methods: We collected data from consecutive STEMI patients admitted to the cardiac catheterization laboratory of the IRCCS A. Gemelli University Polyclinic Foundation from October 2017 to September 2019., Results: Out of 423 consecutive STEMI patients, 297 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the study. Of them, 107/297 (36%) received an intracoronary GPI bolus-only during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) not followed by intravenous infusion and 190/297 (64%) received standard antithrombotic therapy. Of the 107 GPI-treated, 22/107 (21%) had P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment (adjunctive strategy) and 85/107 (79%) did not (bridging strategy). During hospital staying, there was no difference in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major+minor bleeding (P=0.283), TIMI major (P=0.267) or TIMI minor (P=0.685) bleeding between groups. No stroke event occurred in the GPI group. Despite patients receiving GPI having a significantly higher intraprocedural ischemic burden, no significant differences were found in the efficacy outcomes between groups. Consistent findings were observed for patients receiving GPIs bolus before (bridging strategy) or after (adjunctive strategy) P2Y12 inhibitors, compared to those receiving standard therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analyses did not find any independent predictors significantly associated to the primary and secondary composite endpoints., Conclusions: In a contemporary real-world population of STEMI patients undergoing PPCI, the use of intracoronary GPIs bolus-only in selected patients at high ischemic risk is safe and could represent a useful antithrombotic strategy both in those pretreated and in those naïve to P2Y12 inhibitors.

Background: The clinical impact of different prophylactic anticoagulation regimens among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We pooled evidence from available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide insights on this topic., Methods and Results: We searched for RCTs comparing treatment with an escalated-dose (intermediate-dose or therapeutic-dose) vs. a standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation regimen in critically and non-critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization and without a formal indication for anticoagulation. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause death, and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Seven RCTs were identified, including 5154 patients followed on an average of 33 days. Compared to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, escalated-dose prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction of all-cause death [17.8% vs. 18.6%; risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-1.18] but was associated with an increase in major bleeding (2.4% vs. 1.4%; RR 1.73, 95%CI 1.15-2.60). Compared to prophylactic anticoagulation used at a standard dose, an escalated dose was associated with lower rates of venous thromboembolism (2.5% vs. 4.7%; RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41-0.74) without a significant effect on myocardial infarction (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.47-1.36), stroke (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.43-2.09), or systemic arterial embolism (RR 1.20, 95%CI 0.29-4.95). There were no significant interactions in the subgroup analysis for critically and non-critically ill patients., Conclusions: Our findings provide comprehensive and high-quality evidence for the use of standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation over an escalated-dose regimen as routine standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have an indication for therapeutic anticoagulation, irrespective of disease severity., Study Registration: This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021257203)., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Patterns of real-world antiplatelet therapy (APT) are reported to differ from guideline recommendations. This study describes patterns of APT during the year following a hospital diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and possible implications in terms of revascularization rates, rehospitalizations, and costs for the Italian National Health Service. Methods: From >5 million people, patients discharged (=index date) with primary/secondary ACS diagnosis in 2017 were identified by cross-linkage of administrative health data collected by the Ricerca e Salute (ReS) Foundation. Patients were characterized by revascularization rates at index date, APT at one month and one year (with appropriate coverage defined as ≥80% of defined daily doses), and rehospitalizations and healthcare costs during follow-up. Results: From the 2017 ReS database, 7966 (1.46 × 1000 inhabitants) were discharged alive with an ACS diagnosis. Most were >69 years and male. Of these, 83% (6640/7966) received ≥1 recommended antiplatelet agent within one month (treated group): 23% (1870/7966) as single and 60% (4770/7966) as dual APT. Among the 53% undergoing revascularization, 81% received dual APT at one month. Of the 78% with the same APT at one year, 66% showed appropriate coverage. For subjects treated and untreated with APT at one month, one-year rehospitalization rates were 54% and 66%, respectively, and mean per capita costs were EUR 14,316 and EUR 16,552, respectively (hospitalization driving >80% of costs). Conclusions: Among survivors of a hospitalized ACS diagnosis, this analysis shows relatively high APT under-treatment at one month and one year, associated with fewer index revascularization rates, more rehospitalizations, and greater costs. Further initiatives to understand undertreatment and poor adherence should lead to improved health management and savings.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is considered a relatively safe procedure associated with low rates of complications, but is inevitably associated with short and mid-to-long term increased bleeding risk. Besides the short term risk associated with the arterial access to perform PCI, enhanced bleeding risk persists for several months, given the need for antithrombotic therapy to prevent procedure-related thrombotic complications as well as ischemic recurrences. Bleeding is a powerful harbinger of adverse outcomes. This awareness has fuelled intense research on bleeding reduction strategies, including new PCI devices and techniques as well as new medications and antithrombotic regimens. We here review the mechanisms and prevalence of bleeding in PCI patients, discuss the available evidence from a practical point of view, and explore future perspectives on how to treat and prevent bleeding complications in these patients., Competing Interests: M.G. declares that he has received consulting fees or honoraria from Terumo, outside the present work. F.A. declares that she has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, BMS/Pfizer and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the present work. F.B. declares that he has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Abiomed, Medtronic and Terumo, outside the present work. C.T. declares that he has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Abiomed, Medtronic and Terumo, outside the present work. F.C. declares to be member of the advisory board of GlyCardial Diagnostics. The remaining authors report no disclosures. Mattia Galli is serving as one of the Guest editors of this journal. We declare that Mattia Galli had no involvement in the peer review of this article and has no access to information regarding its peer review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to Julio Núñez Villota., (Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.)

Aims: Low-dose (LD) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in adjunct to antiplatelet therapy, known as dual-pathway inhibition (DPI), have been tested to prevent ischaemic events in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the overall safety and efficacy of LD DOACs vs placebo on a background of antiplatelet therapy., Methods and Results: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LD DOAC (defined as a dosage below the lowest approved for stroke prevention) vs placebo among patients with CVD receiving single or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in at least 50% of the population and followed for at least 6 months, were included. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to overcome different follow-up durations across trials. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint major bleeding. A pre-specified subgroup analysis was performed for different DOAC-dose regimens. A total of 49 802 patients from 7 RCTs were included. Low-dose DOACs vs placebo were associated with significant reductions in MACE (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.91, number needed to treat, NNT, 86) and myocardial infarction (IRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95, NNT 355) and significant increases of major (IRR 2.05, 95% CI 1.50-2.80, number needed to harm, NNH, 89) or all bleeding (IRR 1.82, 95% CI 1.49-2.22, NNH 23). Cardiovascular death (IRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.03, NNT 784), intracranial (IRR 1.18, 95% CI 0.71-1.96, NNH 1810), and fatal bleeding (IRR 1.13, 95% CI 0.76-1.69, NNH 3170) did not differ significantly between strategies. Non-significant reductions of all-cause death (IRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.01, NNT 821) and stroke (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.01, NNT 315) favoured LD DOACs. Meta-regression analyses showed a significant interaction between percentage of DAPT use and increased risk of major bleeding (P = 0.04), intracranial haemorrhage (P = 0.035), and stroke (P = 0.0003). Subgroup analysis of very LD DOAC, defined as ≤1/3 of the lowest approved dose for stroke prevention (i.e. rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily) seemed to mitigate the risk of bleeding without any trade-off in efficacy compared to other LD DOAC regimens., Conclusions: In patients with CVD, LD DOAC vs placebo on a background of antiplatelet therapy, reduced ischaemic events at the expense of increased major and all bleeding, but without significantly increasing intracranial or fatal bleeds, while the reduction of cardiovascular or total mortality and stroke was not statistically significant. A DPI with very LD DOAC (i.e. rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily) appeared particularly advantageous, especially when combined with a single antiplatelet agent and used among patients at high ischaemic and low bleeding risk., Study Registration: This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021232744)., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants are available for patients with atrial fibrillation., Objective: This study compared adherence and persistence of once-daily (QD) vs twice-daily (BID) direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation., Methods: A cohort study was conducted in three databases in the Netherlands, Italy and Germany. Patients with AF starting direct oral anticoagulants after drug approval date were included. The index date was the date of first dispensing. Study patients were restricted to those aged ≥ 18 years, ≥ 1 year database history and ≥ 1 year follow-up. Adherence to treatment was defined as the proportion of days covered ≥ 80% between the index date and the date of last dispensing of the index regimen (i.e. exposure period). The proportion of days covered was also determined during the 12-month follow-up. Persistence was defined as continuous use from index to treatment discontinuation., Results: In the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, respectively, 6068, 32,260 and 167,445 patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 70, 77 and 74 years, and 31%, 40% and 61% were QD users, all respectively. Among QD/BID users, 93/90%, 88/86% and 77/58%, respectively were adherent during the exposure period. Persistence rates at 1 year in QD/BID users were 60/59%, 13/14% and 46/31%, respectively., Conclusions: Adherence to treatment was high. In Germany, adherence was markedly higher in QD users compared with BID users. In Italy and the Netherlands, these differences were marginal. Persistence was low in all countries, but discontinuation was temporary. Only in Germany, persistence was markedly lower in BID users vs QD users., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Proteomics of atypical phenotypes may help unravel cardiovascular disease mechanisms., Aim: We aimed to prospectively screen the proteome of four types of individuals: with or without coronary artery disease (CAD), each with or without multiple risk factors. Associations with individual risk factors and circulating biomarkers were also tested to provide a functional context to the protein hits., Materials and Methods: The CAPIRE study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02157662) is a cross-sectional study aimed at identifying possible new mechanisms promoting or protecting against atherothrombosis. Quantification (by aptamer technology), ranking (using partial least squares), and correlations (by multivariate regression) of ~5000 plasma proteins were performed in consecutive individuals aged 45-75 years, without previous cardiovascular disease, undergoing computed tomography angiography for suspected CAD, showing either >5/16 atherosclerotic segments (CAD + ) or completely clean arteries (CAD - ) and either ≤ 1 risk factor (RF + ) or ≥3 risk factors (RF - ) (based on history, blood pressure, glycemia, lipids, and smoking)., Results: Of 544 individuals, 39% were atypical (93 CAD + /RF - ; 120 CAD - /RF + ) and 61% typical (102 CAD + /RF + ; 229 CAD - /RF - ). In the comparison with CAD + /RF - adjusted for sex and age, CAD - /RF + was associated with increased atrial myosin regulatory light chain 2 (MYO) and C-C motif chemokine-22 (C-C-22), and reduced protein shisa-3 homolog (PS-3) and platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase (PAF-AH). Extending the analysis to the entire cohort, an additional 8 proteins were independently associated with CAD or RF; by logistic regression, the 12-protein panel alone discriminated the four groups with AUC ROC 's of 0.72-0.81 (overall p = 1.0e -38 ). Among them, insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 is positively associated with RF, lower BMI, and HDL-cholesterol, renin with CAD higher glycated hemoglobin HbA 1c , and smoking., Conclusions: In a CCTA-based cohort, four proteins, involved in opposing vascular processes (healing vs. adverse remodeling), are specifically associated with low CAD burden in high CV-risk individuals (high MYO and C-C-22) and high CAD burden in low-risk subjects (high PS-3 and PAF-AH), in interaction with BMI, smoking, diabetes, HDL-cholesterol, and HbA 1c . These findings could contribute to a deeper understanding of the atherosclerotic process beyond traditional risk profile assessment and potentially constitute new treatment targets., Competing Interests: FA reports consultancy/speaker fees from Amgen, Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. SW is an employee and shareholder of SomaLogic Inc., Boulder, Colorado, USA. AMag reports personal fees from Bayer, Fresenius, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Ferrannini, Manca, Ferrannini, Andreotti, Andreini, Latini, Magnoni, Williams, Maseri and Maggioni.)

Traditional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (RFs) and coronary artery disease (CAD) do not always show a direct correlation. We investigated the metabolic differences in a cohort of patients with a high CV risk profile who developed, or did not develop, among those enrolled in the Coronary Atherosclerosis in Outlier Subjects: Protective and Novel Individual Risk Factors Evaluation (CAPIRE) study. We studied 112 subjects with a high CV risk profile, subdividing them according to the presence (CAD/High-RFs) or absence of CAD (No-CAD/High-RFs), assessed by computed tomography angiography. The metabolic differences between the two groups were identified by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Characteristic patterns and specific metabolites emerged for each of the two phenotypic groups: high concentrations of pyruvic acid, pipecolic acid, p-cresol, 3-aminoisobutyric acid, isoleucine, glyceric acid, lactic acid, sucrose, phosphoric acid, trimethylamine-N-oxide, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaric acid, erythritol, 3-hydroxybutyric acid, glucose, leucine, and glutamic acid; and low concentrations of cholesterol, hypoxanthine, glycerol-3-P, and cysteine in the CAD/High-RFs group vs the No-CAD/High-RFs group. Our results show the existence of different metabolic profiles between patients who develop CAD and those who do not, despite comparable high CV risk profiles. A specific cluster of metabolites, rather than a single marker, appears to be able to identify novel predisposing or protective mechanisms towards CAD beyond classic CVRFs.

Background: Ion channel inhibition may offer protection against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Inflammation and reduced platelet count occur during COVID-19 but precise quantification of risk thresholds is unclear. The Recov ery-SIRIO study aimed to assess clinical effects of amiodarone and verapamil and to relate patient phenotypes to outcomes., Methods: RECOVERY-SIRIO is a multicenter open-label 1:1:1 investigator-initiated randomized trial with blinded event adjudication. A sample of 804 symptomatic hospitalized nonintensive-care COVID-19 patients, follow-up for 28 days was initially planned., Results: The trial was stopped when a total of 215 patients had been randomized to amiodarone (n = 71), verapamil (n = 72) or standard care alone (n = 72). At 15 days, the hazard ratio (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) for clinical improvement was 0.77 (0.52-1.14) with amiodarone and 0.97 (0.81-1.17) with verapamil as compared to usual care. Clinically relevant associations were found between mortality or lack of clinical improvement and higher peak C-reactive protein (CRP) levels or nadir platelet count at 7, 10 and 15 days. Mortality rate increased by 73% every 5 mg/dL increment in peak CRP (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.27-2.37) and was two-fold higher for every decrement of 100 units in nadir platelet count (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.37-3.51). By cluster analysis, thresholds of 5 mg/dL for peak CRP and 187 × 103/mcL for nadir platelet count identified the phenogroup at greatest risk of dying., Conclusions: In this randomized trial, neither amiodarone nor verapamil were found to significantly accelerate short-term clinical improvement. Peak CRP and nadir platelet counts were associated with increased mortality both in isolation and by cluster analysis.

Aims: The value of elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy over medical therapy alone in managing stable patients with coronary artery disease is debated. We reviewed all trials comparing the two strategies in this population., Methods and Results: From inception through November 2020, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and other databases were searched for randomised trials comparing revascularisation against medical therapy alone in clinically stable coronary artery disease patients. Treatment effects were measured by rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals, using random-effects models. Cardiac mortality was the pre-specified primary endpoint. Spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) and its association with cardiac mortality were secondary endpoints. Further endpoints included all-cause mortality, any MI, and stroke. Longest follow-up data were abstracted. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021225598). Twenty-five trials involving 19 806 patients (10 023 randomised to revascularisation plus medical therapy and 9783 to medical therapy alone) were included. Compared with medical therapy alone, revascularisation yielded a lower risk of cardiac death [RR 0.79 (0.67-0.93), P < 0.01] and spontaneous MI [RR 0.74 (0.64-0.86), P < 0.01]. By meta-regression, the cardiac death risk reduction after revascularisation, compared with medical therapy alone, was linearly associated with follow-up duration [RR per 4-year follow-up: 0.81 (0.69-0.96), P = 0.008], spontaneous MI absolute difference (P = 0.01) and percentage of multivessel disease at baseline (P = 0.004). Trial sequential and sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of the cardiac mortality findings. All-cause mortality [0.94 (0.87-1.01), P = 0.11], any MI (P = 0.14), and stroke risk (P = 0.30) did not differ significantly between strategies., Conclusion: In stable coronary artery disease patients, randomisation to elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy led to reduced cardiac mortality compared with medical therapy alone. The cardiac survival benefit after revascularisation improved with longer follow-up times and was associated with fewer spontaneous MIs., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Four large trials have recently evaluated the effects of anti-inflammatory drugs in the secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in over 25 000 patients followed for 1.9-3.7 years. CANTOS tested subcutaneous canakinumab [an anti-interleukin (IL) 1β antibody] 300 mg every 3 months against placebo in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) >2 mg/L, demonstrating efficacy in preventing MACE but increased rates of fatal infections. COLCOT (in patients with recent MI) and LoDoCo2 (in patients with chronic coronary syndromes) tested oral colchicine (an NLRP3 inflammasome inhibitor) 0.5 mg daily vs. placebo, demonstrating prevention of MACE with a slightly increased risk of pneumonia in COLCOT (0.9 vs. 0.4%) but not in LoDoCo2. CIRT tested oral methotrexate (an anti-rheumatic anti-nuclear factor-kB) 15-20 mg per week against placebo in ischaemic heart disease patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome, without significant reduction in MACE rates or in circulating IL6 or CRP levels, and with increased risk of skin cancers. In summary, canakinumab and colchicine have shown efficacy in preventing MACE in ischaemic heart disease patients, but only colchicine has acceptable safety (and cost) for use in secondary cardiovascular prevention. Clinical results are expected with the anti-IL6 ziltivekimab., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. © The Author(s) 2021.)