Search

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the la

Es hat sich gezeigt, dass das Maß der Plättchenaggregation, welches mit der optischen Aggregometrie (LTA) in Plättchenreichem Plasma (PRP) gemessen wird, mit der Prognose nach einer perkutanen Koronarintervention (PCI) zusammen hängt. Messungen der Plättchenfunktion mit LTA sind jedoch zeitaufwendig. Eine neue Methode, die mehrfach Elektroden Aggregometrie (MEA), wurde zur schnellen Messung der Plättchenaggregation in Vollblut entwickelt. Ziel der Studie war ein Vergleich der Plättchenfunktion mit MEA und LTA vor und nach einer Gabe von 600 mg Clopidogrel., The level of platelet aggregation, measured with light transmission aggregometry (LTA) in platelet rich plasma (PRP), has been shown to predict outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, measuring parameters of platelet function with LTA is time consuming. A new method, multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA), to rapidly measure platelet aggregation in whole blood has been developed. The aim of this study was to assess parameters of platelet function with MEA and LTA before and after administration of 600 mg clopidogrel.

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.

While there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision for initiating and continuing anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static "one-off" assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by aging, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this executive summary of a European and Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Paper, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with a view to summarizing "best practice" when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, and review established bleeding risk factors and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism, are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

Whilst there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision to initiate and continue anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both the thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static 'one off' assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by ageing, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this Consensus Document, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with the view to summarizing 'best practice' when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, review established bleeding risk factors, and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

Timely and effective antithrombotic therapy is critical to improving outcome, including survival, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Achieving effective platelet inhibition and anticoagulation, with minimal risk, is particularly important in high-risk ACS patients, especially those with cardiogenic shock (CS) or those successfully resuscitated following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), who have a 30-50% risk of death or a recurrent ischaemic event over the subsequent 30 days. There are unique challenges to achieving effective and safe antithrombotic treatment in this cohort of patients that are not encountered in most other ACS patients. This position paper focuses on patients presenting with CS or immediately post-OHCA, of presumed ischaemic aetiology, and examines issues related to thrombosis and bleeding risk. Both the physical and pharmacological impacts of CS, namely impaired drug absorption, metabolism, altered distribution and/or excretion, associated multiorgan failure, co-morbidities and co-administered treatments such as opiates, targeted temperature management, renal replacement therapy and circulatory or left ventricular assist devices, can have major impact on the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic drugs. Careful attention to the choice of antithrombotic agent(s), route of administration, drug-drug interactions, therapeutic drug monitoring and factors that affect drug efficacy and safety, may reduce the risk of sub- or supra-therapeutic dosing and associated adverse events. This paper provides expert opinion, based on best available evidence, and consensus statements on optimising antithrombotic therapy in these very high-risk patients, in whom minimising the risk of thrombosis and bleeding is critical to improving outcome.

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of medical conditions but to date only one official position paper related to left circulation thromboembolism has been published. This interdisciplinary paper, prepared with the involvement of eight European scientific societies, reviews the available evidence and proposes a rationale for decision making for other PFO-related clinical conditions. In order to guarantee a strict evidence-based process, we used a modified grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A critical qualitative and quantitative evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk/benefit ratio. The level of evidence and the strength of the position statements were weighed and graded according to predefined scales. Despite being based on limited and observational or low-certainty randomised data, a number of position statements were made to frame PFO management in different clinical settings, along with suggestions for new research avenues. This interdisciplinary position paper, recognising the low or very low certainty of existing evidence, provides the first approach to several PFO-related clinical scenarios beyond left circulation thromboembolism and strongly stresses the need for fresh high-quality evidence on these topics.

The aim of this collaborative document is to provide an update for clinicians on best antithrombotic strategies in patients with aortic and/or peripheral arterial diseases. Antithrombotic therapy is a pillar of optimal medical treatment for these patients at very high cardiovascular risk. While the number of trials on antithrombotic therapies in patients with aortic or peripheral arterial diseases is substantially smaller than for those with coronary artery disease, recent evidence deserves to be incorporated into clinical practice. In the absence of specific indications for chronic oral anticoagulation due to concomitant cardiovascular disease, a single antiplatelet agent is the basis for long-term antithrombotic treatment in patients with aortic or peripheral arterial diseases. Its association with another antiplatelet agent or low-dose anticoagulants will be discussed, based on patient's ischaemic and bleeding risk as well therapeutic paths (e.g. endovascular therapy). This consensus document aims to provide a guidance for antithrombotic therapy according to arterial disease localizations and clinical presentation. However, it cannot substitute multidisciplinary team discussions, which are particularly important in patients with uncertain ischaemic/bleeding balance. Importantly, since this balance evolves over time in an individual patient, a regular reassessment of the antithrombotic therapy is of paramount importance.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is effective in older patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, while the indication has recently broadened to younger patients at lower risk. Although thromboembolic and bleeding complications after TAVI have decreased over time, such adverse events are still common. The recommendations of the latest 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease on antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing TAVI are mostly based on expert opinion. Based on recent studies and randomized controlled trials, this viewpoint document provides updated therapeutic insights in antithrombotic treatment during and after TAVI.

Coronary bifurcations exhibit localized turbulent flow and enhanced propensity for platelet deposition, plaque rupture, and atherothrombosis. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of bifurcation lesions is associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events. Such risk is modulated by anatomical complexity, intraprocedural factors and pharmacological therapy. There is no consensus on the appropriate PCI strategy or the optimal regimen and duration of antithrombotic treatment in order to decrease the risk of ischemic and bleeding complications in the setting of coronary bifurcation. A uniform therapeutic approach meets a clinical need. The present initiative, promoted by the European Bifurcation Club (EBC), involves opinion leaders from Europe, America, and Asia with the aim to analyze the currently available evidence. Although mainly derived from sub-studies of large trials or small studies, or from authors' opinions, an algorithm for the optimal management of patients undergoing bifurcation PCI, developed on the basis of clinical presentation, bleeding risk, and intraprocedural strategy is here proposed.