Search

The role of percutaneous coronary interventions in addition to medical therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease continues to be debated in routine clinical practice, despite more than 2 decades of randomized controlled trials. The residual uncertainty arises from particular challenges facing revascularization trials. Which endpoint do doctors care about, and which do patients care about? Which participants should be enrolled? What background medical therapy should we use? When is placebo control relevant? In this paper, we discuss how these questions can be approached and examine the merits and disadvantages of possible options. Engaging multiple stakeholders, including patients, researchers, regulators, and funders, to ensure the design elements are methodologically valid and clinically meaningful should be an aspirational goal in the development of future trials., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: The long-term prognostic impact of post-discharge bleeding in the unique population of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unexplored., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the association between post-discharge bleeding and subsequent mortality after ACS according to index strategy (PCI or no PCI) and to contrast with the association between post-discharge myocardial infarction (MI) and subsequent mortality., Methods: In a harmonized dataset of 4 multicenter randomized trials (APPRAISE-2 [Apixaban for Prevention of Acute Ischemic Events-2], PLATO [Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes], TRACER [Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome], and TRILOGY ACS [Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes]), the association between post-discharge noncoronary artery bypass graft-related GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) moderate, severe, or life-threatening bleeding (landmark 7 days post-ACS) and subsequent all-cause mortality was evaluated in a time-updated Cox proportional hazards analysis. Interaction with index treatment strategy was assessed. Results were contrasted with risk for mortality following post-discharge MI., Results: Among 45,011 participants, 1,133 experienced post-discharge bleeding events (2.6 per 100 patient-years), and 2,149 died during follow-up. The risk for mortality was significantly higher <30 days (adjusted hazard ratio: 15.7; 95% confidence interval: 12.3 to 20.0) and 30 days to 12 months (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.7; 95% confidence interval: 2.1 to 3.4) after bleeding, and this association was consistent in participants treated with or without PCI for their index ACS (p for interaction = 0.240). The time-related association between post-discharge bleeding and mortality was similar to the association between MI and subsequent mortality in participants treated with and without PCI (p for interaction = 0.696)., Conclusions: Post-discharge bleeding after ACS is associated with a similar increase in subsequent all-cause mortality in participants treated with or without PCI and has an equivalent prognostic impact as post-discharge MI., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular diseases encountered in clinical practice. Current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) when the aortic valve is severely stenotic and the patient is symptomatic; however, a substantial proportion of patients with severe AS are asymptomatic at the time of first diagnosis. Although specific morphological valve features, exercise testing, stress imaging, and biomarkers can help to identify patients with asymptomatic severe AS who may benefit from early AVR, the optimal management of these patients remains uncertain and controversial. The current report presents a comprehensive review of the natural history and the diagnostic evaluation of asymptomatic patients with severe AS, and is followed by a meta-analysis from reported studies comparing an early AVR strategy to active surveillance, with an emphasis on the level of evidence substantiating the current guideline recommendations. Finally, perspectives on directions for future investigation are discussed., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)