Search

Inflammation is an important player both for the initiation and progression of coronary artery disease and for coronary plaque instability. Moreover, inflammation contributes to stent thrombosis and in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention. In the past several decades, most studies evaluated the involvement of cellular effectors of classic inflammatory responses, such as monocytes/macrophages, neutrophils, and T cells. Yet, besides classic inflammation, mounting evidence derived from both experimental and clinical studies suggests an important, often unrecognized, role for effector cells of allergic inflammation in both the pathogenesis of coronary artery disease and adverse events following stent implantation. In this review, we discuss the role of effector cells of allergic inflammation in the setting of coronary artery disease progression and instability, and in the occurrence of adverse events following stent implantation, as well. Moreover, we discuss possible therapeutic approaches targeting different specific pathways of allergic inflammatory activation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bioresorbable coronary stents have been introduced into clinical practice to improve the outcomes of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is the most studied of these stent platforms; however, recent trials comparing BVS with everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES) raised concerns about BVS safety. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of BVS versus EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, scientific sessions abstracts, and relevant Web sites for randomized trials with a follow-up of ≥2 years investigating percutaneous coronary interventions with BVS versus EES. The primary outcomes of our analysis were definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion failure (TLF; device-oriented composite end point of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]). Secondary outcomes were target vessel myocardial infarction, TLR, and cardiac death. We calculated the risk estimates for main outcomes according to a fixed-effect model.Results: We included 7 trials comprising data for 5583 patients randomized to receive either a BVS (n=3261) or an EES (n=2322). Median follow-up was 24 months (range, 24-36 months). Patients treated with BVS had a higher risk of definite/probable ST compared with patients treated with EES (odds ratio, 3.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.97-5.62; P<0.00001). In particular, patients with BVS had a higher risk of subacute, late, and very late ST, whereas the risk of acute ST was similar. Patients treated with BVS compared with EES had a higher risk at 2 years of TLF (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.90; P=0.003), driven mainly by an increased risk of target vessel myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.28; P=0.0001; I2=0%) and of TLR (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.62; P=0.05). Of importance, the risk of TLF and TLR for patients with BVS was higher between 1 and 2 years, whereas there was no difference in the first year. Risk of cardiac death was similar between the 2 groups.Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of randomized trials with a follow-up of ≥2 years demonstrated a higher risk of ST and of TLF in patients treated with BVS compared with EES. Of note, BVS had a higher risk of subacute, late, and very late ST, whereas the risk of TLF and TLR was higher between 1 and 2 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary evidence supports device-based transcatheter interventions for the management of patients with structural heart disease. These procedures, which include aortic valve implantation, mitral or tricuspid valve repair/implantation, left atrial appendage occlusion, and patent foramen ovale closure, profoundly differ with respect to clinical indications and procedural aspects. Yet, patients undergoing transcatheter cardiac interventions require antithrombotic therapy before, during, or after the procedure to prevent thromboembolic events. However, these therapies are associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications. To date, challenges and controversies exist regarding balancing the risk of thrombotic and bleeding complications in these patients such that the optimal antithrombotic regimens to adopt in each specific procedure is still unclear. In this review, we summarize current evidence on antithrombotic therapies for device-based transcatheter interventions targeting structural heart disease and emphasize the importance of a tailored approach in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]