Search

Aims: Although dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is currently recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), its use in elderly patients remain challenging. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile of ticagrelor 60 vs. 90 mg twice daily among elderly patients (≥75 years) with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: PLINY The ELDER (NCT04739384) was a randomized, crossover trial testing the non-inferiority of a lower vs. standard dose of ticagrelor with respect to the primary endpoint of P2Y12 inhibition as determined by pre-dose P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) using the VerifyNow-P2Y12 (Accumetrics, San Diego, CA). Other pharmacodynamic tests included light transmittance aggregometry, multiple electrode aggregometry, and response to aspirin. Plasma levels of ticagrelor and its active metabolite AR-C124910XX were also evaluated. A total of 50 patients (mean age 79.6±4.0 years, females 44%) was included in the trial. Ticagrelor 60 mg was non-inferior to ticagrelor 90 mg according to VerifyNow-P2Y12 results (PRU 26.4±32.1 vs. 30.4±39.0; least squares mean difference: -4; 95% confidence interval: -16.27 to 8.06; p for non-inferiority=0.002). Other pharmacodynamic parameters were similar between the two ticagrelor doses and there were no differences in response to aspirin. Plasma levels of ticagrelor (398.29±312.36 ng/mL vs. 579.57±351.73 ng/mL, p=0.006) and its active metabolite were significantly lower during treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg., Conclusions: Although plasma concentrations were lower, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily provided a similar magnitude of platelet inhibition compared with ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily among elderly patients undergoing PCI. Clinical Trial registration: EudraCT 2019-002391-13. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04739384., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared.

Antithrombotic therapy represents the cornerstone of the pharmacological treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal combination and duration of antithrombotic therapy is still matter of debate requiring a critical assessment of patient comorbidities, clinical presentation, revascularization modality, and/or optimization of medical treatment. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of patients with ACS encompassing both patients with and without ST segment elevation ACS have been recently published. Shortly before, a European expert consensus task force produced guidance for clinicians on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with ACS as well as chronic coronary syndrome. The scope of this manuscript is to provide a critical appraisal of differences and similarities between the European consensus paper and the latest ESC recommendations on oral antithrombotic regimens in ACS patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: V.A. reports speakers honoraria from Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer and is consultant/advisory board for Bayer Healthcare, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and BMS, outside the submitted work. D.J.A. declares that he has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi and Vectura, outside the present work; D.J.A. also declares that his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions and Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation.. D.C. declares that he has received consulting and speaking fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biotronik, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis outside the present work. SH has received speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Pfizer and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. S.J. reported grants from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. P.J. serves as an unpaid steering committee member of trials funded by Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Biosensors, St Jude Medical, Terumo, and The Medicines Company; receives institutional research grants from Appili Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Biosensors International, Eli Lilly, and The Medicines Company; and receives institutional honoraria for participation in advisory boards or consulting from Amgen, Ava, and Fresenius, but has not received personal payments by any pharmaceutical company or device manufacturer. S.L. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Pifezer/BMS, ICON, Chiesi, and Novonordisk, all outside the submitted work. R.M. reports institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, DSI, Insel Gruppe AG, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, Zoll; personal fees from ACC, Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, SCAI; consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, DSI, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, Philips; Equity, 1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, CONTROLRAD (spouse); Scientific Advisory Board for AMA, Biosensors (spouse), all outside the submitted work. G.M. reports institutional research funds or fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Ascendia, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Celecor, CSL Behring, Idorsia, Lilly, Novartis, Novo, Opalia, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, Sanofi, Terumo, outside the submitted work. E.P.N. reports research grants from Abbott and Amgen and lecture fees/honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Regeneron, outside the submitted work. R.F.S. reports institutional research grants/support from AstraZeneca and Cytosorbents; personal fees from Alfasigma, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Cytosorbents, Daiichi Sankyo, Idorsia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio and Tabuk; all outside the submitted work. P.V. reports personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, and personal fees from CLS Behring, outside the submitted work. S.W. reports research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, V-Wave. S.W. serves as unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave and Xeltis, but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers. He is also member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. K.A.A.F. has received grants and personal fees from Bayer/Janssen and AstraZeneca and personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron and Verseon, outside the submitted work. M.V. reports grants and/or personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Terumo, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals-Ltd, Universität Basel Department Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol-Myers-Squib SA, Biotronik, Boston scientific, Medtronic, Vesalio, Novartis, Chiesi, PhaseBio, outside the submitted work. The other authors report no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) according to the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) criteria has prognostic relevance among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, it is unclear whether the type of cardiac biomarker used for the diagnosis of periprocedural MI plays a role in terms of event frequency and outcomes., Objectives: To compare the characteristics of SCAI periprocedural MI based on creatine kinase-myocardial band fraction (CK-MB) vs. high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) in patients undergoing elective PCI., Methods and Results: Between 2017 and 2021, periprocedural MI was assessed in a prospective study. The primary clinical outcome of interest was all-cause death at 1-year follow-up. A total of 1010 patients undergoing elective PCI were included. SCAI periprocedural MI based on CK-MB vs. hs-cTnI occurred in 1.8 and 13.5% of patients, respectively. hs-cTnI periprocedural MI in the absence of concomitant CK-MB criteria was associated with lower rates of ancillary criteria, including angiographic, ECG, and cardiac imaging criteria. At 1-year follow-up, periprocedural MI defined by CK-MB (adjusted hazard ratio, HR, 4.27, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.23-14.8; P = 0.022) but not hs-cTnI (adjusted HR 2.04, 95% CI 0.94-4.45; P = 0.072) was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death. Hs-cTnI periprocedural MI was not predictive of death unless accompanied by CK-MB criteria (adjusted HR 4.64, 95% CI 1.32-16.31; P = 0.017)., Conclusion: In the setting of elective PCI, using hs-cTn instead of CK-MB resulted in a substantial increase in SCAI periprocedural MI events, which were not prognostically relevant in the absence of concurrent CK-MB elevations., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Multiple guidelines and consensus papers have addressed the role of antithrombotic strategies in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Since evidence and terminology continue to evolve, the authors undertook a consensus initiative to guide clinicians to select the optimal antithrombotic regimen for each patient. The aim of this document is to provide an update for clinicians on best antithrombotic strategies in patients with established CAD, classifying each treatment option in relation to the number of antithrombotic drugs irrespective of whether the traditional mechanism of action is expected to mainly inhibit platelets or coagulation cascade. With the aim to reach comprehensiveness of available evidence, we systematically reviewed and performed meta-analyses by means of both direct and indirect comparisons to inform the present consensus document., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Arterial hypertension is a condition with a high prevalence in the global population and represents a major risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events, including stroke and death. Non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, with combination therapy as a standard strategy, are very effective in achieving optimal blood pressure (BP) goals. Nevertheless, in a non-negligible proportion of patients, drug therapy is ineffective at achieving BP targets or there is intolerance to specific anti-hypertensive medications. In this context, the use of invasive treatments for BP control, including renal denervation, represents a valuable therapeutic option. Renal denervation has experienced ups and downs over the years, with an initial growth period and a decline mainly linked to the initial negative results of a large, randomized trial. However, recent data from new trials and long-term follow-up of initial trials have confirmed the benefit and safety of the procedure by relaunching it in daily clinical practice. Additional research evaluating ablation methods other than radiofrequency are needed to be able to more clearly define the role of this procedure and the type of patients that can benefit most from it., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: To appraise all available antithrombotic treatments within or after 12 months following coronary revascularization and/or acute coronary syndrome in two network meta-analyses., Methods and Results: Forty-three (N = 189 261 patients) trials within 12 months and 19 (N = 139 086 patients) trials beyond 12 months were included for efficacy/safety endpoints appraisal. Within 12 months, ticagrelor 90 mg bis in die (b.i.d.) [hazard ratio (HR), 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.88], aspirin and ticagrelor 90 mg (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95), or aspirin, clopidogrel and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86) were the only treatments associated with lower cardiovascular mortality, compared with aspirin and clopidogrel, without or with greater bleeding risk for the first and the other treatment options, respectively. Beyond 12 months, no strategy lowered mortality; compared with aspirin; the greatest reductions of myocardial infarction (MI) were found with aspirin and clopidogrel (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85) or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (HR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.61-0.95), especially ticagrelor 90 mg (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.92), and of stroke with VKA (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.76) or aspirin and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.76). All treatments increased bleeding except P2Y12 monotherapy, compared with aspirin., Conclusion: Within 12 months, ticagrelor 90 mg monotherapy was the only treatment associated with lower mortality, without bleeding risk trade-off compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Beyond 12 months, P2Y12 monotherapy, especially ticagrelor 90 mg, was associated with lower MI without bleeding trade-off; aspirin and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg most effectively reduced stroke, with a more acceptable bleeding risk than VKA, compared with aspirin.Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifiers: CRD42021243985 and CRD42021252398., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The five-item PRECISE-DAPT, integrating age, haemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, creatinine clearance, and prior bleeding, predicts bleeding risk in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stent implantation. We sought to assess whether the bleeding risk prediction offered by the PRECISE-DAPT remains valid among patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month onwards after coronary stenting instead of standard DAPT and having or not having centrally adjudicated bleeding endpoints., Methods and Results: The PRECISE-DAPT was calculated in 14 928 and 7134 patients from GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY trials, respectively. The ability of the score to predict Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding was assessed and compared among patients on ticagrelor monotherapy (experimental strategy) or standard DAPT (reference strategy) from 1 month after drug-eluting stent implantation. Bleeding endpoints were investigator-reported or centrally adjudicated in GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY, respectively. At 2 years, the c-indexes for the score among patients treated with the experimental or reference strategy were 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-0.71] vs. 0.63 (95% CI: 0.59-0.67) in GLOBAL LEADERS (P = 0.27), and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.61-0.72) in GLASSY (P = 0.88). Decision curve analysis showed net benefit using the PRECISE-DAPT to guide bleeding risk assessment under both treatment strategies. Results were consistent between investigator-reported and adjudicated endpoints and using the simplified four-item PRECISE-DAPT., Conclusion: The PRECISE-DAPT offers a prediction model that proved similarly effective to predict clinically relevant bleeding among patients on ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month after coronary stenting compared with standard DAPT and appears to be unaffected by the presence or absence of adjudicated bleeding endpoints., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Current evidence on dyslipidaemia management has expanded to novel treatments and very low achieved levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). We sought to compare the clinical impact of more-intensive vs. less-intensive LDL-C lowering by means of statins and currently recommended non-statin medications in secondary prevention., Methods and Results: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials of statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, or bile acid sequestrants with >500 patients followed for ≥1 year. We employed random-effects models using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare outcomes. We included 19 trials (15 of statins, 3 of PCSK9 inhibitors, and 1 of ezetimibe) with 152 507 patients randomly assigned to more-intensive (n = 76 678) or less-intensive treatment (n = 75 829). More-intensive treatment was associated with 19% relative risk reduction for the primary outcome, major vascular events (MVEs; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.86). Risk reduction was greater across higher baseline levels and greater achieved reductions of LDL-C. The clinical benefit was significant across varying types of more-intensive treatment and was consistent for statins (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76-0.86) and non-statin agents (PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.94) as active (more-intensive) intervention (P-interaction = 0.38). Each 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C was associated with 19% relative decrease in MVE. Death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularization also favoured more-intensive treatment., Conclusion: Reduction of MVE is proportional to the magnitude of LDL-C lowering across a broad spectrum of on-treatment levels in secondary prevention. Statin intensification and add-on treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe are associated with significant reduction of cardiovascular morbidity in this very high-risk population.

Aims: To analyse reasons, timing and predictors of hospital readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Methods and Results: Patients included in the Bern TAVI Registry between August 2007 and June 2014 were analysed. Fine and Gray competing risk regression was used to identify factors predictive of hospital readmission within 1 year after TAVI with bootstrap analysis for internal validation. Of 868 patients alive at discharge, 221 (25.4%) were readmitted within 1 year. Compared with patients not requiring readmission, those with at least one readmission more frequently were male and more often had atrial fibrillation and higher creatinine values (P < 0.05 for all cases). For overall 308 readmissions, cardiovascular causes accounted for 46.1% with heart failure as the most frequent indication; non-cardiovascular readmissions occurred for surgery (11.7%), gastrointestinal disorders (9.7%), malignancy (4.9%), respiratory diseases (4.6%) and chronic kidney failure (2.6%). Male gender (subhazard ratio, SHR, 1.33, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.02-1.73, P = 0.035) and stage 3 kidney injury (SHR 2.04, 95% CI 1.12-3.71, P = 0.021) were found independent risk factors for any hospital readmission, whereas previous myocardial infarction (SHR 1.88, 95% CI 1.22-2.90, P = 0.004) and in-hospital life-threatening bleeding (SHR 2.18, 95%CI 1.24-3.85, P = 0.007) were associated with cardiovascular readmissions. The event rate for mortality was significantly increased after readmissions for any cause (RR 4.29, 95% CI 2.86-6.42, P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Hospital readmission was observed in one out of four patients during the first year after TAVI and was associated with a significant increase in mortality., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2017. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)