Search

Background--The most suitable approach for patients with aspirin hypersensitivity undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains to be assessed. Methods and Results-- Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were systematically searched for papers describing protocols about aspirin hypersensitivity in the percutaneous coronary intervention setting. Discharge from hospital with aspirin was the primary end point, whereas rates of adverse reactions being a secondary outcome. An online international survey was performed to critically analyze rates of aspirin hypersensitivity and its medical and interventional management. Eleven studies with 283 patients were included. An endovenous desensitization protocol was performed on one of them, with high efficacy rate (98%) and a low adverse reaction rate when compared with oral administration. No significant differences were reported among the oral protocols in terms of efficacy (less versus more fractionated [95.8% {95.4%- 96.2%} versus 95.9% {95.2-96.5%}]), whereas higher incidence of rash and angioedema were reported for protocols with <6 doses escalation (2.6% [1.1%-4.1%] versus 2.6% [1.9%-3.2%]). In the survey, we collected answer from 86 physician of the 100 interviewed. Fifty-six percent of them managed aspirin hypersensitivity changing the therapeutic regimen (eg, clopidogrel monotherapy and indobufen). Despite the previous safety data, desensitization protocols were adopted by only 42% of surveyed cardiologist. Conclusions--Available protocols for aspirin hypersensitivity are effective and safe, representing a feasible approach for patients needing dual antiplatelet therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study of patients symptomatic for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) randomly assigned to different ablation schemes. A long-term follow-up of AF showed short-term results which cannot be considered permanent because AF recurrences are still present in patients who had pulmonary vein isolation strategy.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: There are limited data regarding the impact of final kissing balloon (FKI) in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention using ultrathin stents in left main or bifurcations. Methods: All patients undergoing left main or bifurcations percutaneous coronary intervention enrolled in the RAIN registry (Very Thin Stents for Patients With MAIN or BiF in Real Life: The RAIN, a Multicenter Study) evaluating ultrathin stents were included. Major adverse cardiac event (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) was the primary end point, while its components, along with target vessel revascularization, were the secondary end points. The main analysis was performed comparing patients with and without FKI after adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Subgroup analyses were performed according to FKI (short [<3 mm] versus long overlap), strategy (provisional versus 2-stent), routine versus bail-out FKI, and the use of imaging and proximal optimization technique. Results: Two thousand seven hundred forty-two patients were included. At 16 months (8–20) follow-up, inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted rates of major adverse cardiac event were similar between FKI and no-FKI group (15.1% versus 15.5%; P =0.967), this result did not change with use of imaging, proximal optimization technique, or routine versus bail-out FKI. In the 2-stent subgroup, FKI was associated with lower rates of target vessel revascularization (7.8% versus 15.9%; P =0.030) and target lesion revascularization (7.3% versus 15.2%; P =0.032). Short overlap FKI was associated with a lower rate of target lesion revascularization compared with no FKI (2.6% versus 5.4%; P =0.034), while long overlap was not (6.8% versus 5.4%; P =0.567). Conclusions: In patients with bifurcations or unprotected left main treated with ultrathin stents, short overlap FKI is associated with less restenosis. In a 2-stent strategy, FKI was associated with less target vessel revascularization and restenosis. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03544294. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Different devices have been released for closure of femoral vascular access after coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas evidence about their efficacy and safety when compared with manual compression or head to head is lacking, especially across different diameters of sheaths, age and sex., Results: A total of 30 studies were included in the analysis. Manual compression was evaluated as the control group in all of the included studies (5620 patients), Angioseal in 15 studies (17-29) (1812 patients), Exoseal in two studies (30-31) (1773 patients), Perclose in six (29, 32-37) (849 patients), Vasoseal in eight (36, 38-43) (699 patients), DUETT in one study (44) (392 patients), StarClose in two studies (23, 45) (334 patients), Techstar in two studies (37, 46) (252 patients) and extravascular staple in one study (47) (242 patients). At network meta-analysis, all the devices resulted as not superior to manual compression to reduce all vascular complications, and these results did not vary at metaregression for age, sex and diameter of sheaths. Manual compression significantly increased time to hemostasis when compared with Femoseal (5.72; 1.91-19.10), Vasoseal (5.11; 2.32-11.33), Perclose (3.46; 1.70-7.06), Angioseal (14.95; 7.84-28.57) and Techstar (9.78; 1.81-53.65), while was similar to StarClose, DUETT and Exoseal., Conclusion: Different vascular devices for closure of femoral access did not results superior to manual compression to reduce complications, whereas offered a shorted time to hemostasis. StarClose was the device with the highest probability to perform best in terms of complication, whereas Angioseal was superior in terms of reduction of time to hemostasis.