Search

Background: Optimal duration and choice of antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remain controversial., Methods and Results: Digital databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase) were queried to select all randomized controlled trials on a post-percutaneous coronary intervention population with acute coronary syndrome. Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months was compared with 4 major strategies: high-potency, high- to low-potency, low-dose, and short-duration DAPT. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of different antiplatelet strategies. This study was the second updated manuscript under the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration (CRD42021286552). Thirty-two randomized controlled trials comprising 103 459 (51 750 experimental, 51 709 control) patients were included. Compared with DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months, high- to low-potency DAPT (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52-0.92]) and aspirin+prasugrel containing DAPT for 12 months (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72-0.98]) had a significantly lower, whereas DAPT for 1 month followed by clopidogrel only (RR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.06-2.39]) had a higher, incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year (median follow-up). Prasugrel (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.09-1.66]) and ticagrelor (RR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.17-1.62]) containing DAPT for 12 months had significantly higher rates, whereas high- to low-potency DAPT (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63-1.15]) had no significant risk of major bleeding., Conclusions: Aspirin and ticagrelor for 3 months, followed by aspirin and clopidogrel for the remaining duration, can be considered the optimal strategy for treating post-percutaneous coronary intervention patients with acute coronary syndrome because of a significantly reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events without increasing the risk of bleeding.

Background: The American College of Cardiology Reduce the Risk: PCI Bleed Campaign was a hospital-based quality improvement campaign designed to reduce post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) bleeding events. The aim of the campaign was to provide actionable evidence-based tools for participants to review, adapt, and adopt, depending upon hospital resources and engagement., Methods: We used data from 8 757 737 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry between 2015 and 2021 to compare patient and hospital characteristics and bleeding outcomes among campaign participants (n=195 hospitals) and noncampaign participants (n=1384). Post-PCI bleeding risk was compared before and after campaign participation. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine the adjusted association between campaign participation and post-PCI bleeding events. Prespecified subgroups were examined., Results: Campaign hospitals were more often higher volume teaching facilities located in urban or suburban locations. After adjustment, campaign participation was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of bleeding (bleeding: adjusted odds ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.71]). Campaign hospitals had a greater decrease in bleeding events than noncampaign hospitals. In a subgroup analysis, the reduction in bleeding was noted in non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients, but no significant reduction was seen in patients without acute coronary syndrome., Conclusions: Participation in the American College of Cardiology Reduce the Risk: PCI Bleed Campaign was associated with a significant reduction in post-PCI bleeding. Our results underscore that national quality improvement efforts can be associated with a significant impact on PCI outcomes., Competing Interests: Dr Amin has institutional grant support (modest) from GE Healthcare and Chiesi. Dr Abbott has the following relationships with industry: research: Boston Scientific and Microport; consulting: Abbott, Medtronic, Penumbra, Shockwave, and Philips. Dr Masoudi had a contract with the American College of Cardiology for his role as the Chief Scientific Advisor, National Cardiovascular Data Registry. The other authors report no conflicts.

Aims: Based on recent clinical data, the 2020 ESC guidelines on non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) suggest to tailor antithrombotic strategy on individual thrombotic risk. Nonetheless, prevalence and prognostic impact of the high thrombotic risk (HTR) criteria proposed are yet to be described. In this analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry, we assessed prevalence and prognostic impact of HTR, defined according to the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines, and if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel vary with thrombotic risk., Methods and Results: PROMETHEUS was a multicentre prospective study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients were at HTR if presenting with one clinical plus one procedural risk feature. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization, at 1 year. Adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with propensity score stratification and multivariable Cox regression. Among 16 065 patients, 4293 (26.7%) were at HTR and 11 772 (73.3%) at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. The HTR conferred increased incidence of MACE (23.3 vs. 13.6%, HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.71-2.00, P < 0.001) and its single components. Prasugrel was prescribed in patients with less comorbidities and risk factors and was associated with reduced risk of MACE (HTR: adjHR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.02; low-to-moderate risk: adjHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88; pinteraction = 0.32)., Conclusion: High thrombotic risk, as defined by the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines, is highly prevalent among ACS patients undergoing PCI. The HTR definition had a strong prognostic impact, as it successfully identified patients at increased 1 year risk of ischaemic events., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.B.E. receives a pension from and has equity in Eli Lilly and Company. G.S. reports a research grant from Boston Scientific and speaker or consulting fees from B. Braun, Biosensors, and Boston Scientific. T.H. has received research grant support from Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo. S.S. has received from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. U.B. has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. G.D. has received consulting fees and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, consulting fees from Biosensors, and previously holding stock in Medtronic. R.M. reports grants from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, DSI, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and OrbusNeich; personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Medscape/WebMD, Siemens Medical Solutions, PLx Opco Inc/dba PLx Pharma Inc., Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, and Medtelligence (Janssen Scientific Affairs); other from Abbott laboratories, other from Abiomed, other from Bristol Myers Squibb, other from Claret Medical, other from Elixir Medical, other from The Medicines eCompany, other from Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano Corp., and other from Watermark Research Partners; and non-financial support and other from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The other authors report no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. 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.)

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Capodanno reports speaker or consulting fees from Amgen, Arena, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, and Terumo; and institutional fees from Medtronic. Dr Mehran reports institutional research payments from Abbott, Abiomed, Alleviant Medical, Amgen, AM-Pharma, Arena, AstraZeneca, Atricure, Bayer, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Cytosorbents, Daiichi Sankyo, Element Science, Faraday, Filterlex Medical, Humacyte, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Mediasphere, Medtelligence, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, Penumbra, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, Protembis, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave, Vivasure, and Zoll; personal fees from Cine-Med Research, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Vectura, and WebMD; equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, and ControlRad (spouse); and roles with the American Medical Association (Scientific Advisory Board, JAMA Cardiology Associate editor), American College of Cardiology (board of trustees member, member clinical trials research program), and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (Women in Innovations committee member; faculty Cardiac Research Foundation; no fee). Dr Baber discloses honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular. Dr Bhatt discloses the following relationships: advisory board: Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys; board of directors: Angiowave (stock options), Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; chair: inaugural chair, American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; consultant: Broadview Ventures and Hims; data monitoring committees: Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for PORTICO [Portico Re-sheathable Transcatheter Aortic Valve System US IDE Trial], funded by St Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (chair, PEITHO [Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis Study]), Cleveland Clinic (including for ExCEED [Centera THV System in Intermediate Risk Patients Who Have Symptomatic, Severe, Calcific, Aortic Stenosis], funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (chair, PERFORMANCE 2 [Protection Against Emboli During Carotid Artery Stenting Using the Neuroguard IEP System]), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for ENVISAGE [Edoxaban Compared to Standard Care After Heart Valve Replacement Using a Catheter in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation], funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for ABILITY-DM [Randomized Comparison of Abluminus DES+ Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Coronary Artery Disease Patients with Diabetes Mellitus], funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, and Rutgers University (for the National Institutes of Health–funded MINT [Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion]); honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; chair, American College of Cardiology Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI [Evaluation of Dual Therapy With Dabigatran vs Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation That Undergo a PCI With Stenting] clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II [Study to Investigate CSL112 in Subjects With Acute Coronary Syndrome] executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for PRONOUNCE [A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease], funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (editor-in-chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (guest editor; associate editor), K2P (co-chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (course director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS [Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies] operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and US national coleader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (chief medical editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (secretary/treasurer), WebMD (continuing medical education steering committees), and Wiley (steering committee); other: Clinical Cardiology (deputy editor), National Cardiovascular Data Registry–ACTION Registry Steering Committee (chair), and VA CART (Cardiovascular Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking) Research and Publications Committee (chair); patent: sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, assigned to Lexicon; neither the author nor Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives any income from this patent); research funding: Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; royalties: Elsevier (editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); site coinvestigator: Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; trustee: American College of Cardiology; and unfunded research: FlowCo and Takeda. Dr Capranzano reports speaker fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, and Bayer. Dr Collet reports grants for the institution, honoraria, or research fees from BMS Pfizer, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr Cuisset reports consulting and lecture fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards, Europa Organisation, Medtronic, Terumo, and Sanofi, and shares from CERC, a health care company. Dr L. De Luca has received consulting fees or honoraria from Amgen, Aspen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Pfizer/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Servier, and The Medicines Company, outside the present work. Dr Farb has received payment as an individual for consulting fee or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Sanofi and institutional payments for grants from PLx Pharma and The Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Gibson reports grant support paid to the institution and consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, CeleCor, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck. Dr Hahn reports an institutional research grant from the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Korea, and from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Donga-ST, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, and Medtronic Inc. Dr James repots grants to the institution from Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, and AstraZeneca. Dr Lemos reports institutional research funding, unpaid advisory board membership, unpaid membership of the steering/executive/data safety and monitoring group of trials, and unpaid interventional proctorship by Abbott, Corindus, Scitech, Boston Scientific, and Flouit but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers; being part of Argonauts, an innovation facilitator; and partial support by a grant from The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil (grant 306677/2019-9). Dr Lopes reports research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, and Pfizer and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, and Portola. Dr Morice reports being chief executive officer and a shareholder of CERC and a minor shareholder of Electroducer. Dr O’Donoghue reports grants through the hospital from Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, Merck, and AstraZeneca, and honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Dr Serruys reports consultancy fees from SMT, Philips, Novartis, Merillife, and Xeltis. Dr Smits reports institutional research grants from Abbott Vascular and SMT and speaker or consulting honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Microport, and Terumo. Dr Steg reports research grants from Amarin, Bayer, Sanofi, and Servier; he is a speaker or consultant for Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen, Kowa, Idorsia, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Servier; he is senior associate editor of Circulation. Dr Storey reports institutional research grants/support and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Cytosorbents, GlyCardial Diagnostics, and Thromboserin and personal fees from Alnylam, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Hengrui, Idorsia, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, PhaseBio, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr Valgimigli reports grants and personal fees from Terumo and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Universität Basel, Dept Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squib SA, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medscape, Medtronic, Vesalio, Novartis, Chiesi, ECRI, and PhaseBio. Dr Vranckx received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer AG, CSL Behring, Novartis, and Pfizer-Bristol Meyers Squibb alliance. Dr Windecker reports research, travel, or educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, 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 & Dohme, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; serves as an advisory board member or member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, SINOMED, Terumo, V-Wave, and Xeltis, with payments to the institution but no personal payments; and is a member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without effect on his personal remuneration. Dr Yeh reports research grants or consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and consulting fees from Cathworks, Elixir Medical, Shockwave, and Zoll. Dr Angiolillo 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; and 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 the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Background: Oral activated factor XI (FXIa) inhibitors may modulate coagulation to prevent thromboembolic events without substantially increasing bleeding. We explored the pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of the oral FXIa inhibitor asundexian for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (MI)., Methods: We randomized 1601 patients with recent acute MI to oral asundexian 10, 20, or 50 mg or placebo once daily for 6 to 12 months in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2, dose-ranging trial. Patients were randomized within 5 days of their qualifying MI and received dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The effect of asundexian on FXIa inhibition was assessed at 4 weeks. The prespecified main safety outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding comparing all pooled asundexian doses with placebo. The prespecified efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or stent thrombosis comparing pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg doses with placebo., Results: The median age was 68 years, 23% of participants were women, 51% had ST-segment-elevation MI, 80% were treated with aspirin plus ticagrelor or prasugrel, and 99% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention before randomization. Asundexian caused dose-related inhibition of FXIa activity, with 50 mg resulting in >90% inhibition. Over a median follow-up of 368 days, the main safety outcome occurred in 30 (7.6%), 32 (8.1%), 42 (10.5%), and 36 (9.0%) patients receiving asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian versus placebo: hazard ratio, 0.98 [90% CI, 0.71-1.35]). The efficacy outcome occurred in 27 (6.8%), 24 (6.0%), 22 (5.5%), and 22 (5.5%) patients assigned asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg versus placebo: hazard ratio, 1.05 [90% CI, 0.69-1.61])., Conclusions: In patients with recent acute MI, 3 doses of asundexian, when added to aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, resulted in dose-dependent, near-complete inhibition of FXIa activity without a significant increase in bleeding and a low rate of ischemic events. These data support the investigation of asundexian at a dose of 50 mg daily in an adequately powered clinical trial of patients who experienced acute MI., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04304534; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search; Unique identifier: 2019-003244-79.

Introduction: The decision to shorten the duration of DAPT following PCI in patients with ACS remains controversial because of the concern for increased ischemic events., Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search in seven databases to explore the efficacy of 1 to 3 months of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI for ACS. Randomized controlled trials that compared 1 to 3 months with 6 to 12 months of DAPT after PCI for ACS were identified. Integrated hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by random effects model for each prespecified outcome of interest. Meta-regression analyses were performed to examine the association of outcomes with select patient characteristics., Results: A total of 9 randomized controlled trials consisting of 25,907 patients were included. There was no difference in the hazard of NACE (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.07) and MACE (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.17) between 1 and 3 months of DAPT and 6 to 12 months of DAPT. However, implementing 1 to 3 months of DAPT was associated with lower hazard of both any bleeding (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.66) and major bleeding (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36-0.62). Meta-regression revealed a nonsignificant but increasing trend of both NACE and MACE with greater proportion of left main and left anterior descending coronary artery lesions and greater proportion of STEMI included in the trials., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that 1 to 3 months of DAPT has similar efficacy for preventing ischemic events with reduced bleeding risk compared with 6 to 12 months of DAPT., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest Ohman M: Research Chiesi USA, Abiomed; Consulting: Cara Therapeutics, Cytokinetics, Milestone, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Pfizer, XyloCor Therapeutics. Dr. Rao reports institutional research funding from Bayer AG for role on steering committee. Dr. Nanna reports funding from the American College of Cardiology Foundation supported by the George F. and Ann Harris Bellows Foundation and from the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health from R03AG074067 (GEMSSTAR award)., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe from a noninterventional registry (Utilization of Ticagrelor in the Upstream Setting for Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome), the short-term ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI) are managed with a loading dose (LD) of a P2Y12 inhibitor (P2Y12i) given at least 4 hours before diagnostic angiography and delineation of coronary anatomy. Prior data on the effects of such "upstream loading" have been inconsistent., Methods: In 53 US hospitals, we evaluated the in-hospital care and outcomes of patients with confirmed non-ST elevation MI managed with an interventional strategy and loaded upstream (at least 4 h before diagnostic angiography) with oral P2Y12i therapy. Patients entered into the database were grouped into 1 of 4 cohorts for analysis: (1) overall cohort, (2) thienopyridine (clopidogrel or prasugrel) load, (3) ticagrelor load, and (4) ticagrelor-consistent. The fourth cohort is a subset of cohort 3 that received ticagrelor throughout the index hospital stay and at discharge. We evaluated in-hospital clinical course and ischemic and bleeding outcomes in all patients and also 30-day outcomes in the ticagrelor-consistent cohort., Results: A total of 3355 patients were enrolled, of whom 1087 had 30-day follow-up. The mean (±SD) age was 63.3 ± 12.5 years, and 62.6% were male. Thrombolysis in MI and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events scores placed these patients in the intermediate risk range, and CRUSADE scores were in the moderate risk range. The LD in Utilization of Ticagrelor in the Upstream Setting for Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome was clopidogrel in 45.6%, ticagrelor in 53.6%, and prasugrel in 0.8%. The median upstream interval (LD to angiography) was 17:27 hours and did not change appreciably over the course of the data collection period (2/15-10/19). Access was radial in 48.6% and femoral in 51.4%. Postangiography management was medical only in 32.3%, percutaneous coronary intervention in 59.4%, and coronary artery bypass grafting in 8.3%. Median length of stay was 2.7 days, and median time from angiography to coronary artery bypass grafting was 3.6 days. In-hospital mortality was 0.51%, and major bleeding (thrombolysis in MI) was 0.24%; the in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events rate was 0.7%, and stent thrombosis occurred in 0.18%. No significant differences were seen between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel cohorts in hospital, but 16% received more than 1 P2Y12i in-hospital. On follow-up (93.2% response), 86.7% of patients reported taking ticagrelor as directed., Conclusions: Upstream loading of P2Y12i was associated with very low rates of bleeding and short length of stay in a large cohort of non-ST elevation MI (NSTEMI) patients managed invasively.

Background: Prior randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the optimal antithrombotic therapies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been powered to evaluate ischemic outcomes. We compared double therapy with oral anticoagulation (OAC) and a P2Y12 inhibitor to triple therapy with an OAC + dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with AF requiring PCI., Methods: Using PRISMA guidelines, we searched for RCTs including patients with AF as an indication for OAC and undergoing PCI or medical management of acute coronary syndrome. The results were pooled using fixed-effects and random-effects models to estimate the overall effect of double therapy versus triple therapy on ischemic and bleeding outcomes., Results: We identified four RCTs, comprising 10,238 patients (5,498 double therapy, 4,740 triple therapy). Trial-reported major adverse cardiovascular events were similar between double therapy and triple therapy (fixed effect model OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94-1.26). However, stent thrombosis (61/5,496 double therapy vs. 33/4738 triple therapy; fixed effect model OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02-2.40; number needed to treat with triple therapy = 242) favored triple therapy. Bleeding outcomes were less frequent with double therapy (746/5470 vs. 950/4710; fixed effect model OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53-0.65; number needed to harm with triple therapy = 16), but with significant heterogeneity (Q = 8.33, p = .04; I 2 = 64%), as were intracranial hemorrhages (19/5470 vs. 30/4710; fixed effect model OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96)., Conclusions: Double therapy in patients with AF requiring OAC following PCI or Acute coronary syndrome has a significantly better safety profile than triple therapy but may be associated with a modest increased risk of stent thrombosis., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Prasugrel is a potent thienopyridine that may be preferentially used in younger patients with lower bleeding risk., Objective: We compared prasugrel use and outcomes by age from the PROMETHEUS study. We also assessed age-related trends in treatment effects with prasugrel versus clopidogrel., Methods: PROMETHEUS was a multicenter acute coronary syndrome (ACS) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry. We compared patients in age tertiles (T1 < 60 years, T2 60-70 years, T3 > 70 years). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. Data were adjusted using multivariable Cox regression for age-related risks and propensity score stratification for thienopyridine effects., Results: The study included 19,914 patients: 7045 (35.0%) in T1, 6489 (33.0%) in T2 and 6380 (32.0%) in T3. Prasugrel use decreased from T1 to T3 (29.2% vs. 23.5% vs. 7.5%, p < 0.001). Crude 1-year MACE rates were highest in T3 (17.4% vs. 16.8% vs. 22.7%, p < 0.001), but adjusted risk was similar between the groups (p-trend 0.52). Conversely, crude incidence (2.8% vs. 3.8% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001) and adjusted bleeding risk were highest in T3 (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.99-1.55 in T2; HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.46-2.30 in T3; p-trend < 0.001; reference = T1). Treatment effects with prasugrel versus clopidogrel did not demonstrate age-related trends for MACE (p-trend = 0.91) or bleeding (p-trend = 0.28)., Conclusions: Age is a strong determinant of clinical risk as well as prasugrel prescription in ACS PCI with much lower use among older patients. Prasugrel did not have a differential treatment effect by age for MACE or bleeding. Frequency of prasugrel use and age-related temporal risks of all-cause death and bleeding after ACS PCI.

Background: High bleeding risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have been widely excluded from randomized device registration trials. The LF study (LEADERS FREE) reported superior outcomes of HBR patients receiving 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with a polymer-free drug-coated stent (DCS). LFII was designed to assess the reproducibility and generalizability of the benefits of DCS observed in LF to inform the US Food and Drug Administration in a device registration decision., Methods: LFII was a single-arm study using HBR inclusion/exclusion criteria and 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with DCS, identical to LF. The 365-day rates of the primary effectiveness (clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) and safety (composite cardiac death and myocardial infarction) end points were reported using a propensity-stratified analysis compared with the LF bare metal stent arm patients as controls., Results: A total of 1203 LFII patients were enrolled with an average 1.7 HBR criteria per patient, including 60.7% >75 years of age, 34.1% on anticoagulants, and 14.7% with renal failure. Propensity-adjusted 365-day clinically indicated target lesion revascularization was significantly lower with DCS (7.2% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.52-0.98]; P =0.0338 for superiority), as was the primary safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction) composite (9.3% versus 12.4%; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.55-0.94]; P =0.0150 for superiority). Stent thrombosis rates were 2.0% DCS and 2.2% bare metal stent. Major bleeding at 1 year occurred in 7.2% DCS patients and 7.2% bare metal stent., Conclusions: LFII reproduces the results of the DCS arm of LF in an independent, predominantly North American cohort of HBR patients.

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) admissions are common and costly. The association between comprehensive ACS care pathways, outcomes, and costs are lacking. From 434,172 low-risk, uncomplicated ACS patients eligible for early discharge (STEMI 35%, UA/NSTEMI 65%) from the Premier database, we identified ACS care pathways, by stratifying low-risk, uncomplicated STEMI and UA/NSTEMI patients by access site for PCI (trans-radial intervention [TRI] vs transfemoral intervention [TFI]) and by length of stay (LOS). Associations with costs and outcomes (death, bleeding, acute kidney injury, and myocardial infarction at 1-year) were tested using hierarchical, mixed-effects regression, and projections of cost savings with change in care pathways were obtained using modeling. In low-risk uncomplicated STEMI patients, compared with TFI and LOS ≥3 days, a strategy of TRI with LOS <3 days and TFI with LOS <3 days were associated with cost savings of $6,206 and $4,802, respectively. Corresponding cost savings for UA/NSTEMI patients were $7,475 and $6,169, respectively. These care-pathways did not show an excess risk of adverse outcomes. We estimated that >$300 million could be saved if prevalence of the TRI with LOS <3 days and TFI with LOS <3 days strategies are modestly increased to 20% and 70%, respectively. In conclusion, we demonstrate the potential opportunity of cost savings by repositioning ACS care pathways in low-risk and uncomplicated ACS patients, toward transradial access and a shorter LOS without an increased risk of adverse outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We sought to investigate the utilization of prasugrel and its association with outcomes relative to clopidogrel in three typical subgroups of ACS in a real-world setting. Prasugrel is superior to clopidogrel for reducing risk of ischemic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but is associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications. PROMETHEUS was a retrospective multicenter observational study of 19,913 ACS patients undergoing PCI from 8 centers in the United States between 2010 and 2013. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The study cohort included 3285 (16.5%) patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 5412 (27.2%) patients with NSTEMI and 11,216 (56.3%) patients with unstable angina (UA). The frequency of prasugrel use at discharge was highest in STEMI and lowest in UA patients, 27.3% versus 22.2% versus 18.9% (p < 0.001). Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel was associated with a lower rate of MACE in STEMI, NSTEMI, or UA at 1 year, but the differences were attenuated for all groups except for patients with UA (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, p = 0.006) after propensity adjusted analysis. After adjustment, there was no difference in bleeding risk between prasugrel and clopidogrel for all groups at 1 year. STEMI patients were more likely to receive prasugrel compared to NSTEMI and UA patients. Prasugrel was associated with reduced adverse outcomes compared with clopidogrel in unadjusted analyses, findings that were largely attenuated upon adjustment and suggest preferential use of prasugrel in low vs high risk patients.

Objective: To investigate the use of prasugrel after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in African American (AA) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Background: AA patients are at higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes after PCI and may derive greater benefit from the use of potent antiplatelet therapy., Methods: Using the multicenter PROMETHEUS observational registry of ACS patients treated with PCI, we grouped patients by self-reported AA or other races. Clinical outcomes at 90-day and 1-year included non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac events (composite of death, MI, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and major bleeding., Results: The study population included 2,125 (11%) AA and 17,707 (89%) non-AA patients. AA patients were younger, more often female (46% vs. 30%) with a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and prior coronary intervention than non-AA patients. Although AA patients more often presented with troponin (+) ACS, prasugrel use was much less common in AA vs. non-AA (11.9% vs. 21.4%, respectively, P = 0.001). In addition, the use of prasugrel increased with the severity of presentation in non-AA but not in AA patients. Multivariable logistic regression showed AA race was an independent predictor of reduced use of prasugrel (0.42 [0.37-0.49], P < 0.0001). AA race was independently associated with a significantly higher risk of MI at 90-days and 1 year after PCI., Conclusions: Despite higher risk clinical presentation and worse 1-year ischemic outcomes, AA race was an independent predictor of lower prasugrel prescription in a contemporary population of ACS patients undergoing PCI., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: To investigate the prevalence, predictors and associations between guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from eight academic centers in the United States., Background: Evidence for GDMT in patients with AMI comes from randomized controlled trials. The use of GDMT in clinical practice is unknown in this setting., Methods: PROMETHEUS is a multicenter observational registry comprising 19,914 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI. Patients with AMI were divided into two groups based on the prescription of GDMT or not (non-GDMT) at discharge. GDMT was defined according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) class I recommendations, specifically, dual antiplatelet therapy, statin and beta-blocker for all AMI patients, and additional ACEI/ARB in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 40%, hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM) or chronic kidney disease (CKD). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of all-cause death, MI, stroke or unplanned target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year., Results: Out of 4,834 patients with AMI, 3,356 (69.4%) patients were discharged on GDMT. Patients receiving GDMT were more often younger and male. Compared with non-GDMT patients, GDMT patients had a significantly lower frequency of comorbidities. Predictors of greater GDMT prescription at discharge were ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and increased body mass index (BMI), whereas hypertension, prior PCI, anemia and CKD were associated with less GDMT prescription. At 1 year, the use of GDMT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of MACE (13.7% vs. 22.5%; adjusted HR 0.68; 95%CI 0.58-0.80; P < 0.001), death (3.7% vs. 9.4%; adjusted HR 0.61; 95%CI 0.46-0.80; P < 0.001), and unplanned TVR (8.4% vs. 11.3%; adjusted HR 0.76; 95%CI 0.61-0.96; P = 0.020). However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of MI (4.3% vs. 7.0%; adjusted HR 0.75; 95%CI 0.56-1.01; P = 0.056), stroke (1.5% vs. 2.0%; adjusted HR 0.79; 95%CI 0.47-1.34; P = 0.384) between the two groups., Conclusion: In a contemporary practice setting in the United States, GDMT was utilized in just over two-thirds of AMI patients undergoing PCI. Predictors of GDMT prescription at discharge included STEMI, BMI and absence of hypertension, CKD, anemia or prior PCI. Use of GDMT was associated with significantly lower risk of 1-year MACE and mortality., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Clinical trial data studies suggest superiority of prasugrel over clopidogrel in patients with diabetes. However, the use, safety and efficacy profile of prasugrel in unselected diabetic patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remain unclear., Methods: PROMETHEUS was a prospective multicenter observational study of 19,919 ACS PCI patients enrolled between 2010 and 2013. The primary endpoint was 90-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), comprising all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The safety endpoint was bleeding requiring hospitalization., Results: We identified 7580 (38%) subjects with and 12,329 (62%) without diabetes. Diabetic patients were older and had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors. However, they were less likely to receive prasugrel (18.2% vs. 21.7%). Use of prasugrel did not increase with the severity of clinical presentation in diabetics, whereas, among non-diabetics, prescription of prasugrel was higher in NSTEMI and STEMI compared to unstable angina. The 90-day and 1-year adjusted risk of MACE was greater in diabetics (at 1 year: 22.7% vs. 16.5%; HR 1.22 [1.14-1.33], p < 0.001). At 1 year, the risk of bleeding was also higher in diabetics (4.9% vs. 4.1%, HR 1.19 [1.01-1.39], p = 0.035). After multivariable adjustment, use of prasugrel was associated with a lower risk of death in diabetic patients both at 90 days and 1 year., Conclusions: Use of prasugrel in diabetic patients with PCI-treated ACS was lower than in non-diabetics despite their high-risk profile and the severity of their clinical presentation. In diabetics, prasugrel was associated with a lower adjusted risk of 90-day death compared with clopidogrel., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The treatment of patients requiring anticoagulation who develop acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or require percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) must balance the reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, stroke, and major bleeding. The development of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation has ushered in an era of potential treatment options for these complex patients. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the clinical evidence underlying the use of DOACs for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation and ACS or PCI. RECENT FINDINGS: Three trials studied this particular patient population; WOEST showed that dual therapy with warfarin and clopidogrel decreased hemorrhage at 1 year compared with standard triple therapy (19.4 vs. 44.4% HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.26-0.50; P < 0.0001), without increasing thromboembolic events (11.1 vs. 17.6% HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.38-0.94; P = 0.025). PIONEER AF-PCI showed that 10-15 mg rivaroxaban plus P2Y 12 inhibitor for 12 months significantly lowered bleeding rates than standard triple therapy (16.8 vs. 26.7% HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47-0.76; P < 0.001) and had equivalent rates of MACE. Finally, REDUAL-PCI compared two different doses of dabigatran (110 mg twice daily and 150 mg twice daily) plus P2Y 12 inhibitor with standard triple therapy and reported reduced ISTH bleeding with both doses; HR 0.52 with 110 mg dabigatran (95% CI 0.42-0.63, P < 0.001) and HR 0.72 with 150 mg dabigatran (95% CI 0.58-0.88; P = 0.002). The rate of the composite of thromboembolic events, death, or unplanned revascularizations was similar between pooled dabigatran dual therapy and triple therapy groups (13.7 vs 13.4% HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84-1.29; P = 0.005). Recent evidence shows that DOACs plus one antiplatelet agent can decrease bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI for ACS. Although not powered to detect non-inferiority or superiority, large studies suggest rivaroxaban 10-15 mg plus P2Y 12 inhibitor for 12 months or dabigatran 150 mg twice daily plus P2y12 inhibitor for 12 months will have similar rates of MACE and stent thrombosis as triple therapy. In patients who have contraindications to DOACs, the strategy of INR-adjusted warfarin plus clopidogrel appears to be safer than warfarin plus dual antiplatelet therapy.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine predictors and outcomes associated with staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus one-time multivessel revascularization (OTMVR) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease., Background: Prior observational studies have not evaluated predictors and outcomes of staged PCI versus OTMVR in a heterogenous population of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who undergo multivessel revascularization., Methods: Data from the Veterans Affairs (VA) CART (Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking) Program were used to evaluate patients who underwent PCI of >2 vessels between October 1, 2007, and September 3, 2014. Associations between individual factors and the decision to perform staged PCI were assessed. Additionally, the impact of measured patient and procedural factors, site factors, and unmeasured site factors on the decision to perform staged PCI was compared. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the association between staged PCI and mortality., Results: A total of 7,599 patients at 61 sites were included. The decision to perform staged PCI was driven by procedural characteristics and unmeasured site factors. Staged PCI was associated with lower risk-adjusted mortality compared with OTMVR (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 0.84; p < 0.01). This mortality benefit was observed among the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.47; p < 0.01), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.87; p < 0.01), unstable angina (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.89; p < 0.01) and stable angina (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.00; p = 0.05) groups., Conclusions: The decision to pursue staged PCI was driven by procedural characteristics and unmeasured site variation and was associated with lower mortality compared with OTMVR. After adjustment, there was an association between staged PCI and reduced mortality. Given the observational nature of these findings, a randomized trial comparing the 2 is needed to guide practice., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate outcomes of routine invasive strategy (RIS) compared with selective invasive strategy (SIS) in elderly patients older than 75 years with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS)., Methods: We systematically searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between January 1, 1990, and October 1, 2016, comparing RIS with SIS for elderly patients (age>75 years) with NSTE-ACS. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs for composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI), and individual end points of all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, revascularization, and major bleeding., Results: A total of 6 RCTs with 1887 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with an SIS, RIS was associated with significantly decreased risk of the composite end point of death or MI (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83). Similarly, RIS led to a significant reduction in the risk of MI (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40-0.66) and need for revascularization (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.91) compared with SIS. There were no significant differences between RIS and SIS in terms of all-cause death (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.63-1.20), CV death (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61-1.15), and major bleeding (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.97-3.97)., Conclusion: In elderly patients older than 75 years with NSTE-ACS, RIS is superior to SIS for the composite end point (death or MI), primarily driven by reduced risk of MI., (Copyright © 2017 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Treatment with P2Y12 inhibitors is an integral part of the standard of care for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the most appropriate timing for P2Y12 inhibitor administration remains unclear, and the value of "preloading" with P2Y12 inhibitors prior to cardiac catheterization is controversial. While pre-catheterization treatment with P2Y12 inhibitors is performed with the goal of decreasing adverse cardiovascular events, this potential benefit must be weighed against the increased risk of bleeding complications and operative delay if coronary artery bypass graft surgery is indicated. A number of studies have been conducted to evaluate the utility of preloading with P2Y12 inhibitors prior to cardiac catheterization for varying indications including stable angina and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In this article, we review the literature and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the preloading strategy. Several individual studies offer inconclusive and even conflicting findings. However, when taken in sum, these studies allow for several conclusions about the utility of P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment. The existing literature demonstrate that preloading is associated with some degree of reduction in adverse ischemic events, although this benefit comes with an increased risk of bleeding complications. The appropriateness of preloading therefore varies based on the indication for catheterization, likely justified in patients with ACS but unlikely to benefit patients with stable angina.

Importance: Current comparative outcomes among black and white patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system are not known., Objective: To compare outcomes between black and white patients undergoing PCI in the VA health system., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study compared black and white patients who underwent PCI between October 1, 2007, and September 30, 2013, at 63 VA hospitals using data recorded in the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking System for Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories (CART-CL) program. A generalized linear mixed model with a random intercept for site assessed the relative difference in odds of outcomes between black and white patients. The setting was integrated institutionalized hospital care. Excluded were all patients of other races or those with multiple listed races and those with missing data regarding race or the diagnostic cardiac catheterization. The dates of analysis were January 7, 2016, to April 17, 2017., Exposure: Percutaneous coronary intervention at a VA hospital., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause readmission rates, 30-day acute kidney injury, 30-day blood transfusion, and 1-year readmission rates for myocardial infarction. In addition, variations in procedural and postprocedural care were examined, including the use of intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, fractional flow reserve measurements, bare-metal stents, postprocedural medications, and radial access., Results: A total of 42 391 patients (13.3% black and 98.4% male; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [9.1] years) satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In unadjusted analyses, black patients had higher rates of 1-year mortality (7.1% vs 5.9%, P < .001) as well as secondary outcomes of 30-day acute kidney injury (20.8% vs 13.8%, P < .001), 30-day blood transfusion (3.4% vs 2.7%, P < .01), and 1-year readmission rates for myocardial infarction (3.3% vs 2.7%, P = .01) compared with white patients. After adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and procedural characteristics, odds for 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.19) were not different between black and white patients. There were also no differences in secondary outcomes with the exception of a higher rate of adjusted 30-day acute kidney injury (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.36)., Conclusions and Relevance: While black patients had a higher rate of mortality than white patients in unadjusted analyses, race was not independently associated with 1-year mortality among patients undergoing PCI in VA hospitals.

Background and Objectives: We sought to determine the frequency of use and association between prasugrel and outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice., Methods: PROMETHEUS was a multicenter observational registry of acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing PCI from 8 centers in the United States that maintained a prospective PCI registry for patient outcomes. The primary end points were major adverse cardiovascular events at 90days, a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Major bleeding was defined as any bleeding requiring hospitalization or blood transfusion. Hazard ratios (HRs) were generated using multivariable Cox regression and stratified by the propensity to treat with prasugrel., Results: Of 19,914 patients (mean age 64.4years, 32% female), 4,058 received prasugrel (20%) and 15,856 received clopidogrel (80%). Prasugrel-treated patients were younger with fewer comorbid risk factors compared with their counterparts receiving clopidogrel. At 90days, there was a significant association between prasugrel use and lower major adverse cardiovascular event (5.7% vs 9.6%, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.67, P<.0001) and bleeding (1.9% vs 2.9%, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83, P<.001). After propensity stratification, associations were attenuated and no longer significant for either outcome. Results remained consistent using different approaches to adjusting for potential confounders., Conclusions: In contemporary clinical practice, patients receiving prasugrel tend to have a lower-risk profile compared with those receiving clopidogrel. The lower ischemic and bleeding events associated with prasugrel use were no longer evident after accounting for these baseline differences., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) complicating percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. To date, no studies have evaluated the association of blood transfusion with AKI in patients undergoing PCI., Methods and Results: We used a retrospective cohort study of all patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI from CathPCI Registry (n=1 756 864). The primary outcome was AKI defined as the rise in serum creatinine post procedure ≥0.5 mg/dL or ≥25% above baseline values. AKI developed in 9.0% of study sample. Patients with AKI were older, more often women, and had high prevalence of comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and advanced stages of chronic kidney disease at baseline. Blood transfusion was utilized in 2.2% of patients. In the overall sample, AKI developed in 35.1% of patients who received transfusion versus 8.4% of patients without transfusion (adjusted odds ratio, 4.87 [4.71-5.04]). In the subgroup of patients who sustained bleeding event and received transfusion, the rate of AKI was significantly increased across all preprocedure hemoglobin levels versus no blood transfusion. Similar findings were seen in the subgroup of patients with no bleeding event., Conclusions: Blood transfusion is strongly associated with AKI in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI. Further investigation is needed to determine whether a restrictive blood transfusion strategy might improve PCI outcomes by reducing the risk of AKI., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objective: We studied the characteristics of patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) after expansion of a STEMI registry as part of the STEMI network programme in a metropolitan city and the surrounding area covering ∼26 million inhabitants., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Emergency department of 56 health centres., Participants: 3015 patients with acute coronary syndrome, of which 1024 patients had STEMI., Main Outcome Measure: Characteristics of reperfusion therapy., Results: The majority of patients with STEMI (81%; N=826) were admitted to six academic percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centres. PCI centres received patients predominantly (56%; N=514) from a transfer process. The proportion of patients receiving acute reperfusion therapy was higher than non-reperfused patients (54% vs 46%, p<0.001), and primary PCI was the most common method of reperfusion (86%). The mean door-to-device (DTD) time was 102±68 min. In-hospital mortality of non-reperfused patients was higher than patients receiving primary PCI or fibrinolytic therapy (9.1% vs 3.2% vs 3.8%, p<0.001). Compared with non-academic PCI centres, patients with STEMI admitted to academic PCI centres who underwent primary PCI had shorter mean DTD time (96±44 min vs 140±151 min, p<0.001), higher use of manual thrombectomy (60.2% vs13.8%, p<0.001) and drug-eluting stent implantation (87% vs 69%, p=0.001), but had similar use of radial approach and intra-aortic balloon pump (55.7% vs 67.2%, and 2.2% vs 3.4%, respectively). In patients transferred for primary PCI, TIMI risk score ≥4 on presentation was associated with a prolonged door-in to door-out (DI-DO) time (adjusted OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.95, p=0.02)., Conclusions: In the expanded JAC registry, a higher proportion of patients with STEMI received reperfusion therapy, but 46% still did not. In developing countries, focusing the prehospital care in the network should be a major focus of care to improve the DI-DO time along with improvement of DTD time at PCI centres., Trial Registration Number: NCT02319473., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: We evaluated outcomes associated with transradial vs. transfemoral approaches and vorapaxar in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the TRACER trial., Background: Vorapaxar reduces ischemic events but increases the risk of major bleeding., Methods: We compared 30-day and 2-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, and urgent coronary revascularization) and noncoronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleedings in 2,192 transradial and 4,880 transfemoral patients undergoing PCI after adjusting for confounding variables, including propensity for transradial access., Results: Overall, 30-day GUSTO moderate/severe and non-CABG TIMI major/minor bleeding occurred less frequently in transradial (0.9% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.001) vs. transfemoral (1.1% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.005) patients. A similar reduction was seen at 2 years (3.3% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.008; 3.3% vs. 4.9%, P < 0.001, respectively). Transradial was associated with an increased risk of ischemic events at 30 days (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.72; P = 0.004), driven primarily by increased periprocedural myocardial infarctions. At 2 years, rates of MACE were comparable (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98-1.33; P = 0.096). Although bleeding rates were higher with vorapaxar in transfemoral vs. transradial patients, there was no significant treatment interaction. Also, the access site did not modulate the association between vorapaxar and MACE., Conclusions: Transradial access was associated with lower bleeding rates and similar long-term ischemic outcomes, suggesting transradial access is safer than transfemoral access among ACS patients receiving potent antiplatelet therapies. Because of the nonrandomized allocation of arterial access, these results should be considered exploratory. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Platelets play a key role in mediating stent thrombosis, which is the major cause of ischemic events immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Antiplatelet therapy is therefore the cornerstone of antithrombotic therapy after PCI. However, the use of antiplatelet agents increases bleeding risk, with more potent antiplatelet agents further increasing bleeding risk. In the past 5 years, potent and fast-acting P2Y 12 inhibitors have augmented the antiplatelet armamentarium available to interventional cardiologists. This article reviews the preclinical and clinical data surrounding these new agents, and discusses the significant questions and controversies that still exist regarding the optimal antiplatelet strategy., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is unclear whether diagnostic protocols based on cardiac markers to identify low-risk chest pain patients suitable for early release from the emergency department can be applied to patients older than 65 years or with traditional cardiac risk factors., Methods and Results: In a single-center retrospective study of 231 consecutive patients with high-risk factor burden in which a first cardiac troponin (cTn) level was measured in the emergency department and a second cTn sample was drawn 4 to 14 hours later, we compared the performance of a modified 2-Hour Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol to Assess Patients with Chest Pain Using Contemporary Troponins as the Only Biomarker (ADAPT) rule to a new risk classification scheme that identifies patients as low risk if they have no known coronary artery disease, a nonischemic electrocardiogram, and 2 cTn levels below the assay's limit of detection. Demographic and outcome data were abstracted through chart review. The median age of our population was 64 years, and 75% had Thrombosis In Myocardial Infarction risk score ≥2. Using our risk classification rule, 53 (23%) patients were low risk with a negative predictive value for 30-day cardiac events of 98%. Applying a modified ADAPT rule to our cohort, 18 (8%) patients were identified as low risk with a negative predictive value of 100%. In a sensitivity analysis, the negative predictive value of our risk algorithm did not change when we relied only on undetectable baseline cTn and eliminated the second cTn assessment., Conclusions: If confirmed in prospective studies, this less-restrictive risk classification strategy could be used to safely identify chest pain patients with more traditional cardiac risk factors for early emergency department release., (© 2015 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Background: It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management., Methods: We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627., Findings: We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045)., Interpretation: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality., Funding: The Medicines Company and Terumo., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access in women undergoing coronary angiography/intervention., Background: The risk of bleeding and vascular access site complications are higher in women than in men., Methods: In a pre-specified RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention) subgroup analysis, we compared outcomes in women (n=1,861) and men (n=5,160) randomized to radial versus femoral access., Results: Overall, women were at higher risk of major vascular complications compared with men (4.7% vs. 1.7%; p<0.0001). Major vascular complications were significantly reduced with radial access in women (3.1% vs. 6.1%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.78; p=0.002) and in men (0.7% vs. 2.8%; HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.45; p<0.0001; interaction p=0.092). Crossover rates were higher with radial compared with femoral access in women (11.1% vs. 1.9%; HR: 5.88; p<0.0001) and men (6.3% vs. 1.9%; HR: 3.32; p<0.0001; interaction p=0.054). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates were similar irrespective of access site (women: HR: 1.05; p=0.471; men: HR: 1.00; p=0.888; interaction p=0.674), with no differences in PCI complications. In multivariable analyses, female sex was an independent predictor of major vascular complications (HR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.76 to 3.25; p<0.0001). There were consistent findings for women and men, with no difference for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and non-coronary artery bypass grafting bleeding (women: 3.9% vs. 5.0%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.19; men: 3.54% vs. 3.5%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.75 to -1.34; interaction p=0.325)., Conclusions: Women undergoing coronary angiography and PCI have a higher risk of vascular access site complications compared with men, and radial access is an effective method to reduce these complications., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, timely restoration of normal blood flow is associated with improved myocardial salvage and survival. Despite improvements in door-to-needle and door-to-balloon times, there remains an unmet need with respect to improved symptom-to-door times. A prior report of an implanted device to monitor ST-segment deviation demonstrated very short times to reperfusion among patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with documented thrombotic occlusion. The goal of the ANALYZE ST study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a novel ST-segment monitoring feature using an existing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) among patients with known coronary artery disease., Methods: The ANALYZE ST study is a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, pivotal Investigational Device Exemption study enrolling 5,228 patients with newly implanted ICD systems for standard clinical indications who also have a documented history of coronary artery disease. Patients will be monitored for 48 months, during which effectiveness of the device for the purpose of early detection of cardiac injury will be evaluated by analyzing the sensitivity of the ST monitoring feature to identify clinical ACS events. In addition, the safety of the ST monitoring feature will be evaluated through the assessment of the percentage of patients for which monitoring produces a false-positive event over the course of 12 months., Conclusions: The ANALYZE ST trial is testing the hypothesis that the ST monitoring feature in the Fortify ST ICD system (St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Paul, MN) (or other ICD systems with the ST monitoring feature) will accurately identify patients with clinical ACS events., (Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high-risk acute patients remains debated. Device-related complications and the more complex patient management could explain such lack of clinical benefit. We aimed to assess the impact of transradial versus transfemoral access for PCI requiring IABP support on vascular complications and clinical outcome., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 321 consecutive patients receiving IABP support during transfemoral (n = 209) or transradial (n = 112) PCI. Thirty-day net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (composite of postprocedural bleeding, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stroke) were the primary end point, with access-related bleeding and hospital stay as secondary end points., Results: Cardiogenic shock and hemodynamic instability were the most common indications for IABP support. Cumulative 30-day NACE rate was 50.2%, whereas an access site-related bleeding occurred in 14.3%. Patients undergoing transfemoral PCI had a higher unadjusted rate of NACEs when compared with the transradial group (57.4% vs 36.6%, P < .01), mainly due more access-related bleedings (18.7% vs 6.3%, P < .01). Such increased risk of NACEs was confirmed after propensity score adjustment (hazard ratio 0.57 [0.4-0.9], P = .007), whereas hospital stay appeared comparable in the 2 groups., Conclusions: In this observational registry, high-risk patients undergoing PCI and requiring IABP support appeared to have fewer NACEs if transradial access was used instead of transfemoral, mainly due to fewer access-related bleedings. Given the inherent limitations of this retrospective work, including the inability to adjust for unknown confounders, further controlled studies are warranted to confirm or refute these findings., (© 2013.)

Importance: The optimal anticoagulant for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) managed with an invasive strategy remains controversial., Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of otamixaban, a novel intravenous direct factor Xa inhibitor, with that of unfractionated heparin plus downstream eptifibatide in patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing a planned early invasive strategy., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled superiority trial that enrolled 13,229 patients with NSTE-ACS and a planned early invasive strategy, at 568 active sites in 55 countries and conducted between April 2010 and February 2013. A planned interim analysis was conducted for otamixaban dose selection., Interventions: Eligible participants were randomized to otamixaban (bolus and infusion, at 1 of 2 doses) or unfractionated heparin plus, at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention, eptifibatide. The otamixaban dose selected at interim analysis was an intravenous bolus of 0.080 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 0.140 mg/kg per hour., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of all-cause death or new myocardial infarction through day 7., Results: Rates of the primary efficacy outcome were 5.5% (279 of 5105 patients) randomized to receive otamixaban and 5.7% (310 of 5466 patients) randomized to receive unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide (adjusted relative risk, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.85-1.16]; P = .93). There were no differences for the secondary end points, including procedural thrombotic complications. The primary safety outcome of Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding through day 7 was increased by otamixaban (3.1% vs 1.5%; relative risk, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.63-2.78]; P < .001). Results were consistent across prespecified subgroups., Conclusions and Relevance: Otamixaban did not reduce the rate of ischemic events relative to unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide but did increase bleeding. These findings do not support the use of otamixaban for patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing planned early percutaneous coronary intervention., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01076764.

Objectives: This study sought to determine if there is an association between bleed location and clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients., Background: The prognostic significance of bleeding location among ACS patients undergoing cardiac catheterization is not well known., Methods: We analyzed in-hospital bleeding events among 9,978 patients randomized in the SYNERGY (Superior Yield of the New Strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization, and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors) study. Bleeding events were categorized by location as access site, systemic, surgical, or superficial, and severity was graded using the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) definition. We assessed the association of each bleeding location and severity with 6-month risk of death or myocardial infarction using a multicovariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard model., Results: A total of 4,900 bleeding events were identified among 3,694 ACS patients with in-hospital bleeding. Among 4,679 GUSTO mild/moderate bleeding events, only surgical and systemic bleeds were associated with an increased risk of 6-month death or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.52 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.16 to 2.94, and 1.40 [95% CI: 1.16 to 1.69], respectively). Mild/moderate superficial and access-site bleeds were not associated with downstream risk (adjusted HR: 1.17 [95% CI: 0.97 to 1.40], and 0.96 [95% CI: 0.82 to 1.12], respectively). Among 221 GUSTO severe bleeds, surgical bleeds were associated with the highest risk (HR: 5.27 [95% CI: 3.80 to 7.29]), followed by systemic (HR: 4.48 [95% CI: 2.98 to 6.72]), and finally access-site bleeds (HR: 3.57 [95% CI: 2.35 to 5.40])., Conclusions: Among ACS patients who develop in-hospital bleeding, systemic and surgical bleeding are associated with the highest risks of adverse outcomes regardless of bleeding severity. Although the most frequent among bleeds, GUSTO mild/moderate access-site bleeding is not associated with increased risk. These data underscore the importance of strategies to minimize overall bleeding risk beyond vascular access site management., (Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

With the large number of antithrombotic therapies available and under investigation for the treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS), practice guidelines now stress the importance of selecting an antithrombotic strategy according to the efficacy and safety profiles of the chosen agent. Contemporary trials have incorporated bleeding along with ischemic end points into a composite end point commonly referred to as net clinical benefit, which allows for simultaneous evaluation of the differences between benefit and harm for an investigational antithrombotic therapy. However, incorporating major bleeding into a composite end point that includes ischemic events is not warranted and is associated with many pitfalls. In this article, we discuss the validity of combining efficacy and safety end points to form a net clinical benefit composite end point with the traditional time-to-event analysis for trials evaluating antithrombotic therapies for NSTE ACS. We describe alternative statistical approaches for concurrent assessment of the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic therapies used to treat patients with NSTE ACS., (Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bleeding is a major limitation of antithrombotic therapy among invasively managed non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) patients; therefore, we examined the use of radial access and its association with outcomes among NSTE-ACS patients., Methods: Clinical characteristics and geographic variation in radial access were examined, as well as its association with bleeding, red blood cell transfusion and ischemic outcomes (96-hour death/myocardial infarction/recurrent ischemic/thrombotic bailout; 30-day death/myocardial infarction; 1-year death) in the EARLY versus delayed, provisional eptifibatide in acute coronary syndromes trial., Results: Of 9126 patients, 13.5% underwent radial-access catheterization. Female sex, age, weight, and prior revascularization were inversely associated with radial access, and its use varied widely by country (2%-97%). There were fewer GUSTO severe/moderate bleeds and red blood cell transfusions in the radial access group; however, it was attenuated after adjustment (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.50-1.06], P = .094 and 1.00 [0.71-1.40] P = .991). Ischemic outcomes did not differ by access site., Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of a large clinical trial, there was significant international variation in use of radial access for NSTE-ACS patients undergoing invasive management, and it was preferentially used in those at lower risk for bleeding. Radial approach was not associated with a significant reduction in either bleeding or ischemic outcomes. Further study is needed to determine whether wider application of radial approach to acute coronary syndrome patients at high risk for bleeding improves overall outcomes., (Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

In a meta-analysis of predominantly observational data, blood transfusion was independently associated with adverse outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction. These findings are consistent with previously published research, but clinical application of these data is hindered by the lack of prospective, randomized trials and the inherent bias in observational studies.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the consistency of the effects of radial artery access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and in those with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS)., Background: The safety associated with radial access may translate into mortality benefit in higher-risk patients, such as those with STEMI., Methods: We compared efficacy and bleeding outcomes in patients randomized to radial versus femoral access in RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention trial) (N = 7,021) separately in those with STEMI (n = 1,958) and NSTEACS (n = 5,063). Interaction tests between access site and acute coronary syndrome type were performed., Results: Baseline characteristics were well matched between radial and femoral groups. There were significant interactions for the primary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke/non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding (p = 0.025), the secondary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (p = 0.011) and mortality (p = 0.001). In STEMI patients, radial access reduced the primary outcome compared with femoral access (3.1% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60; p = 0.026). For NSTEACS, the rates were 3.8% and 3.5%, respectively (p = 0.49). In STEMI patients, death/myocardial infarction/stroke were also reduced with radial access (2.7% vs. 4.6%; HR 0.59; p = 0.031), as was all-cause mortality (1.3% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.39; p = 0.006), with no difference in NSTEACS patients. Operator radial experience was greater in STEMI versus NSTEACS patients (400 vs. 326 cases/year, p < 0.0001). In primary PCI, mortality was reduced with radial access (1.4% vs. 3.1%; HR: 0.46; p = 0.041)., Conclusions: In patients with STEMI, radial artery access reduced the primary outcome and mortality. No such benefit was observed in patients with NSTEACS. The radial approach may be preferred in STEMI patients when the operator has considerable radial experience. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273)., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Antiplatelet therapy serves an important role in the management of acute coronary syndromes and in reducing the risk of thrombotic complications from atrial fibrillation. There has been rapid development of newer and more potent antiplatelet therapies over the last several years that have further reduced ischemic complications, but with a trade-off of increased bleeding risk. Bleeding complications associated with antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies are associated with significantly increased risk of adverse outcomes, including death. Understanding the risk of bleeding associated with antiplatelet agents is critical to developing strategies to mitigate this risk., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) continue to have a large impact on morbidity and mortality in the United States. Over the last two decades, there have been several advancements in the care of patients with ACS. The use of combined antiplatelet and anticoagulants and early invasive risk stratification in high risk patients has improved the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events. However, this treatment strategy increases the risk for bleeding. Studies have found an association between bleeding and subsequent mortality and morbidity in ACS patients; therefore, minimizing bleeding risk has become a priority. This review describes the prevalence of bleeding during ACS management, risk for bleeding, and strategies to reduce bleeding risk.

Background: Prior randomized trials have shown reduced bleeding with bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, it is not known if this benefit is also present when UFH doses are more tightly controlled (as measured by activated clotting time, ACT)., Methods and Results: Patients enrolled in the EVENT (Evaluation of Drug-Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events) registry, were divided into 3 groups, based on the antithrombotic drug used during PCI (UFH monotherapy, UFH+glycoprotein IIb-IIIa receptor inhibitor [GPI], or bivalirudin alone). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for measured covariates (89 variables) and to compare bivalirudin versus UFH monotherapy and bivalirudin versus UFH+GPI groups. The UFH groups were stratified based on ACT achieved (optimal ACT defined as 250-300 for UFH monotherapy and 200-250 when GPI was also used). The primary bleeding outcome was in-hospital composite bleeding, defined as events of access site bleeding, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major/minor bleeding, or transfusion. Primary (in-hospital death/myocardial infarction) and secondary ischemic outcomes (death/MI/unplanned repeat revascularization at 12 months) were also evaluated. Propensity score matching yielded 3022 patients for the UFH monotherapy versus bivalirudin comparison and 3520 patients for the UFH+GPI versus bivalirudin comparison. Bivalirudin use was associated with numerically lower bleeding rates at all categories of achieved ACT when compared with UFH (low, optimal, high ACT: 2.5% versus 4.7%, 1.9% versus 6.0%, 3.1% versus 4.8%, respectively) or heparin+GPI groups (low, optimal, high ACT: 0.0% versus 2.7%, 2.7% versus 5.2%, 2.4% versus 6.1%, respectively) and was not associated with any statistically significant increase in either primary or secondary ischemic outcomes., Conclusions: Among unselected patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin use during PCI was associated with a lower risk of bleeding at all comparator ACT levels without an increase in ischemic outcomes.

Bleeding has recently emerged as an important outcome in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), which is relatively frequent compared with ischaemic outcomes and has important implications in terms of prognosis, outcomes, and costs. In particular, there is evidence that patients experiencing major bleeding in the acute phase are at higher risk for death in the following months, although the causal nature of this relation is still debated. This position paper aims to summarize current knowledge regarding the epidemiology of bleeding in ACS and percutaneous coronary intervention, including measurement and definitions of bleeding, with emphasis on the recent consensus Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definitions. It also provides an European perspective on management strategies to minimize the rate, extent, and consequences of bleeding. Finally, the research implications of bleeding (measuring and reporting bleeding in trials, the importance of bleeding as an outcome measure, and bleeding as a subject for future research) are also discussed.

Background: Small trials have suggested that radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces vascular complications and bleeding compared with femoral access. We aimed to assess whether radial access was superior to femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who were undergoing coronary angiography with possible intervention., Methods: The RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial was a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Patients with ACS were randomly assigned (1:1) by a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system to radial or femoral artery access. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG)-related major bleeding at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome, components of the primary outcome, and stent thrombosis. All other outcomes were as reported by the investigators. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01014273., Findings: Between June 6, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, 7021 patients were enrolled from 158 hospitals in 32 countries. 3507 patients were randomly assigned to radial access and 3514 to femoral access. The primary outcome occurred in 128 (3·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial access group compared with 139 (4·0%) of 3514 in the femoral access group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·72-1·17; p=0·50). Of the six prespecified subgroups, there was a significant interaction for the primary outcome with benefit for radial access in highest tertile volume radial centres (HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28-0·87; p=0·015) and in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (0·60, 0·38-0·94; p=0·026). The rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days was 112 (3·2%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 114 (3·2%) of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·76-1·28; p=0·90). The rate of non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days was 24 (0·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 33 (0·9%) of 3514 patients in the femoral group (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·43-1·23; p=0·23). At 30 days, 42 of 3507 patients in the radial group had large haematoma compared with 106 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·40, 95% CI 0·28-0·57; p<0·0001). Pseudoaneurysm needing closure occurred in seven of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 23 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·30, 95% CI 0·13-0·71; p=0·006)., Interpretation: Radial and femoral approaches are both safe and effective for PCI. However, the lower rate of local vascular complications may be a reason to use the radial approach., Funding: Sanofi-Aventis, Population Health Research Institute, and Canadian Network for Trials Internationally (CANNeCTIN), an initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the Superior Yield of the New Strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization, and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (SYNERGY) study, patients assigned enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) were treated with alternative anticoagulant therapy after randomization at physician discretion, a practice made possible because the trial was open label. Using SYNERGY as an example, we demonstrate the difficulty of evaluating the effect of postrandomization events in clinical trials and discuss possible methodology., Methods and Results: Patients with and without postrandomization crossovers were characterized and event rates analyzed. Statistical modeling was performed using inverse probability weighting and landmark analyses to evaluate the potential impact of postrandomization crossovers on event rates and treatment effect. Of 9978 SYNERGY patients, 9613 (96.3%) received at least 1 dose of randomized therapy and are included in these analyses. Of these, 740 (7.7%; 554 enoxaparin; 186 UFH) had postrandomization crossover. Crossover patients had higher unadjusted rates of 30-day death/myocardial infarction (MI) (18.9% versus 14.0%), thrombolysis in MI (TIMI) bleeding (16.9% versus 7.6%), Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries bleeding (4.5% versus 2.3%), and transfusions (32.3% versus 15.2%). Adjustment for timing of crossover relative to the events attenuated the difference noted in death/MI but accentuated the association with TIMI bleeding. After adjustment using the inverse probability weighting technique, only a modest difference in the absolute treatment effect was observed between enoxaparin and UFH on death/MI (0.6% [unadjusted] versus 0.8% [adjusted]) and TIMI major bleeding (1.5% [unadjusted] versus 1.0% [adjusted]). The landmark analysis indicated a significant association between crossover from enoxaparin to UFH and TIMI bleeding but not in the other direction, and no crossover association was found in death/MI., Conclusions: Postrandomization events in clinical trials are accompanied by substantial confounders that require careful consideration. In SYNERGY, postrandomization crossovers occurred in nearly 10% of patients, abetted by the open-label trial design. These patients had increased incidence of bleeding and death/MI, but after adjustment using several modeling techniques, only a modest impact of postrandomization crossovers on treatment effect was observed. The usual methods of analyzing end points cannot adequately address biases in changing treatment in these patients. The potential biases of membership in a postrandomization subgroup, as well as the methods used to account for the biases, should be considered when weighing the strength of results. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00043784.

Background: Major bleeding in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is associated with an increased risk of subsequent mortality and recurrent ischemic events. Observational data and small randomized trials suggest that radial instead of femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention results in fewer bleeding complications, with preserved and possibly improved efficacy. Radial access versus femoral access has yet to be formally evaluated in a randomized trial adequately powered for the comparison of clinically important outcomes., Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention in patients with ACS managed with an invasive strategy., Design: This was a multicenter international randomized trial with blinded assessment of outcomes. 7021 patients with ACS (with or without ST elevation) have been randomized to either radial or femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention. The primary outcome is the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding up to day 30. The key secondary outcomes are (1) death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to day 30 and (2) non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding up to day 30. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates will also be compared between the two access sites., Conclusions: The RIVAL trial will help define the optimal access site for coronary angiography/intervention in patients with ACS., (Copyright © 2011 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Major bleeding during an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is associated with increased late ischemic events. Patients with bleeding are often discharged without antiplatelet therapy (AT). The association between discharge AT use and late ischemic outcomes among ACS patients with bleeding is uncertain., Methods: We examined discharge AT use among 8,582 ACS patients with in-hospital bleeding from a total of 26,451 patients enrolled in 4 randomized trials. After adjusting for the propensity to receive AT, we compared 6-month postdischarge outcomes between patients discharged with and those discharged without AT., Results: Almost 1 in 10 patients with bleeding was discharged without AT (n=826). Compared with those receiving discharge AT, those not receiving discharge AT had a higher risk of 6-month death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (14.3% vs 7.8%, propensity-adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=1.36, 95% confidence interval=1.01-1.85). Nonuse of AT at discharge was associated with worse outcomes among patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention compared with those treated without it (adjusted HR=4.22 vs 1.13, interaction P=.0003). Discharge monotherapy was associated with worse outcomes than dual AT among patients receiving stents (adjusted HR=1.78, 95% CI=1.04-3.03)., Conclusions: Bleeding occurred commonly among patients with ACS. AT was often not used in these patients at discharge, and lack of discharge AT was associated with an increased risk of 6-month ischemic events. These data raise the possibility that lack of AT use among patients with in-hospital bleeding may contribute to their excess risk of long-term ischemic outcomes., (Copyright © 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) reduces ischemic events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the same properties that confer this benefit lead to an increased bleeding risk. Recent studies have shown a less robust net clinical benefit of GPI in the current era of routine thienopyridine and direct thrombin inhibitor use. To optimize the net clinical benefit of GPI, these agents need to be selectively used in patients most likely to benefit from their anti-ischemic effect, namely patients undergoing PCI for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, select patients undergoing primary PCI, and select patients undergoing PCI without appropriate pre-loading with a thienopyridine. Moreover, strategies to minimize bleeding should be applied in these patients and include shorter GPI infusions (in some patients), dose adjustments of heparin and GPI, careful access site management with more frequent use of the transradial approach, use of smaller sheaths, and identification of patients at high bleeding risk. This review provides an update of the current literature that supports these measures, an insight on the tailored use of GPI, and a potential direction for future research addressing combined antithrombotic therapies., (Copyright © 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)