Search

Importance: Abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces bleeding with no increase in ischemic events in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Objectives: To evaluate the association of sex with the comparative effectiveness of abbreviated vs standard DAPT in patients with HBR., Design, Setting, and Patients: This prespecified subgroup comparative effectiveness analysis followed the Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated vs Standard DAPT Regimen (MASTER DAPT) trial, a multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted at 140 sites in 30 countries and performed from February 28, 2017, to December 5, 2019. A total of 4579 patients with HBR were randomized at 1 month after PCI to abbreviated or standard DAPT. Data were analyzed from July 1 to October 31, 2022., Interventions: Abbreviated (immediate DAPT discontinuation, followed by single APT for ≥6 months) or standard (DAPT for ≥2 additional months, followed by single APT for 11 months) treatment groups., Main Outcomes and Measures: One-year net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (a composite of death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (MACCEs) (a composite of death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (MCB)., Results: Of the 4579 patients included in the analysis, 1408 (30.7%) were women and 3171 (69.3%) were men (mean [SD] age, 76.0 [8.7] years). Ischemic and bleeding events were similar between sexes. Abbreviated DAPT was associated with comparable NACE rates in men (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.75-1.24]) and women (HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.60-1.26]; P = .65 for interaction). There was evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect by sex for MACCEs, with a trend toward benefit in women (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.44-1.05]) but not in men (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.88-1.55]; P = .04 for interaction). There was no significant interaction for MCB across sex, although the benefit with abbreviated DAPT was relatively greater in men (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.50-0.84]) than in women (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.53-1.12]; P = .46 for interaction). Results remained consistent in patients with acute coronary syndrome and/or complex PCI., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that women with HBR did not experience higher rates of ischemic or bleeding events compared with men and may derive particular benefit from abbreviated compared with standard DAPT owing to these numerically lower rates of events., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023020.

Background: The benefit:risk profile of bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to provide conclusive answers. We sought to compare the outcomes of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI., Methods: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in all 5 trials that randomized ≥1000 patients with any myocardial infarction undergoing PCI to bivalirudin versus heparin (MATRIX [Minimizing Adverse Hemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox], VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART [Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial], ISAR-REACT 4 [Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 4], ACUITY [Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy], and BRIGHT [Bivalirudin in Acute Myocardial Infarction vs Heparin and GPI Plus Heparin Trial]). The primary effectiveness and safety end points were 30-day all-cause mortality and serious bleeding., Results: A total of 12 155 patients were randomized: 6040 to bivalirudin (52.3% with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion), and 6115 to heparin (53.2% with planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between bivalirudin and heparin (1.2% versus 1.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.86-1.79]; P =0.25). Cardiac mortality, reinfarction, and stent thrombosis rates were also not significantly different. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding (both access site-related and non-access site-related) compared with heparin (3.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72; P <0.0001). Outcomes were consistent regardless of use of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion or routine lycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use with heparin and during 1-year follow-up., Conclusions: In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin and heparin did not result in significantly different rates of mortality or ischemic events, including stent thrombosis and reinfarction. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding compared with heparin arising both from the access site and nonaccess sites., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Bikdeli reports that he is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to 2 brand models of inferior vena cava filters and is supported by the Scott Schoen and Nancy Adams IGNITE award from the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a career development award from the American Heart Association and VIVA Physicians (No. 938814). Dr Erlinge has received honoraria for advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chiesi, and Sanofi, and speaker honoraria from Bayer, AZ, Novartis, and Chiesi. Dr Valgimigli reports personal grants and personal fees from Terumo, and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, CorFlow, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Universität Basel Dept Klinische Forschung, Bristol Myers Squib SA, Medscape, Biotronik, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr Steg has received research grants from Amarin, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Sanofi, and Servier and honoraria for clinical trials (steering committee, clinical events committee, Data Safety and Monitoring Board) from Amarin, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Novartis, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, and The Medicines Company, and for consulting or speaking from Amarin, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo-Nordisk, and Regeneron. Dr Steg is a senior associate editor at Circulation. Dr Mehran reports institutional research payments from Abbott, Abiomed, Alleviant Medical, AM-Pharma, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, AtriCure, Bayer, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Cytosorbents, Daiichi Sankyo, Element Science, Faraday, Humacyte, Idorsia, Janssen, Magenta, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave, Vivasure, and Zoll; reports personal fees from Cine-Med Research, and WebMD; reports equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, ControlRad (spouse); is in the scientific advisory board for American Medical Association, American College of Cardiology (Board of Trustee member), Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (Women in Innovations committee member), is a JAMA associate editor; and is among the faculty at Cardiovascular Research Foundation (no fee). Dr James’s employer has received research grants from Novartis, Amgen, Jansen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Infraredex. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, and Infraredx; has served as a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Cardiomech, Gore, Amgen, Adona Medical, and Millennia Biopharma; and has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter. Dr Stone’s daughter is an employee at IQVIA. Institutional disclosure: Dr Stone’s employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: The occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive management is associated with worse outcomes. However, the prognostic implications of transient or in-hospital persistent AKI may differ., Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic implications of transient or in-hospital persistent AKI in patients with ACS., Methods: In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox) trial, 203 subjects were excluded because of incomplete information or end-stage renal disease, with a study population of 8,201 patients. Transient and persistent AKI were defined as renal dysfunction no longer or still fulfilling the AKI criteria (>0.5 mg/dL or a relative >25% increase in creatinine) at discharge, respectively. Thirty-day coprimary outcomes were the out-of-hospital composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), defined as the composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding., Results: Persistent and transient AKI occurred in 750 (9.1%) and 587 (7.2%) subjects, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, compared with patients without AKI, the risk for 30-day coprimary outcomes was higher in patients with persistent AKI (MACE: adjusted HR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.48-3.64; P < 0.001; NACE: adjusted HR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.48-3.52; P < 0.001), driven mainly by all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 3.43; 95% CI: 2.03-5.82; P < 0.001), whereas transient AKI was not associated with higher rates of MACE or NACE. Results remained consistent when implementing the KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) criteria., Conclusions: Among patients with ACS undergoing invasive management, in-hospital persistent but not transient AKI was associated with higher risk for 30-day MACE and NACE. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox [MATRIX]; NCT01433627)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The trial was sponsored by Società Italiana di Cardiologia Invasiva (a nonprofit organization), which received grant support from The Medicines Company and Terumo. This substudy did not receive any direct or indirect funding. Prof Leonardi has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca; and has received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Pfizer/Bristol Myers Squibb, ICON, Chiesi, and Novo Nordisk (all outside the submitted work). Prof Vranckx has received personal fees from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, and CLS Behring (all outside the submitted work). Dr Tebaldi has received research grants from GADA and Abbott Vascular; and has received personal fees from Abbott (all outside the submitted work). Prof Andò has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Daiichi Sankyo, Boeringer Ingelheim, and Amgen; and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, and Biosensors (all outside the submitted work). Dr Brugaletta has received a research grant to the institution from AstraZeneca; has received personal fees from Abbott Vascular (outside the submitted work); and has served as an advisory board member for Boston Scientific, iVascular, and Teleflex. Dr Adamo has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic (all outside the submitted work). Prof Windecker has received research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovalve, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, Infraredx, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave; has served as an unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering or executive groups of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave, and Xeltis (but has not received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers); and is a member of the steering or executive committee groups of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding from industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Prof Valgimigli has received grants and personal fees from Abbott, Terumo, and AstraZeneca; has received personal fees from Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Alvimedica, Biosensors, and Idorsia; and has received grants from Medicure (outside the submitted work). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy (APT) after coronary stenting in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) presenting with an acute coronary syndrome remains unclear., Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of an abbreviated APT regimen after coronary stenting in an HBR population presenting with acute or recent myocardial infarction., Methods: In the MASTER DAPT trial, 4,579 patients at HBR were randomized after 1 month of dual APT (DAPT) to abbreviated (DAPT stopped and 11 months single APT or 5 months in patients with oral anticoagulants) or nonabbreviated APT (DAPT for minimum 3 months) strategies. Randomization was stratified by acute or recent myocardial infarction at index procedure. Coprimary outcomes at 335 days after randomization were net adverse clinical outcomes events (NACE); major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE); and type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding., Results: NACE and MACCE did not differ with abbreviated vs nonabbreviated APT regimens in patients with an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 1,780; HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61-1.12 and HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.62-1.19, respectively) or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 2,799; HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.77-1.38 and HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.80-1.59; P interaction  = 0.31 and 0.25, respectively). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was significantly reduced in patients with or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.91 and HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.54-0.92; P interaction  = 0.72) with abbreviated APT., Conclusions: A 1-month DAPT strategy in patients with HBR presenting with an acute or recent myocardial infarction results in similar NACE and MACCE rates and reduces bleedings compared with a nonabbreviated DAPT strategy. (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen [MASTER DAPT]; NCT03023020)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The study was sponsored by the European Cardiovascular Research Institute, a nonprofit organization, and received grant support from Terumo. The sponsor and funder had no role in the study design, data collection, data monitoring, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report. Dr Smits has received personal fees from Terumo and Opsense; has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular, Microport, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received grants from SMT and Microport. Dr Heg reports that CTU Bern, University of Bern, has a staff policy of not accepting honoraria or consultancy fees; however, CTU Bern is involved in design, conduct, or analysis of clinical studies funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations—in particular, pharmaceutical and medical device companies provide direct funding to some of these studies. Dr Vranckx has received personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer AG, BLS Bering, and AstraZeneca. Dr Ozaki has received grants from Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, Daiichi-Sankyo Company Ltd, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, and Sanofi. Dr Morice is a shareholder and CEO of CERC, and a minor shareholder of Electroducer (a startup not involved in the MASTER DAPT trial). Dr Chevalier has received personal fees from Terumo and CERC; and holds stock options in Colibri. Dr Windecker has received research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Bayer, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, CadioValve, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave; serves as an unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesiences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Sinomed, V-Wave, and Xeltis, but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers; and is a member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr Roffi has received institutional research grants from Biotronik, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare, and Terumo. Dr Mahfoud has received grants from Terumo, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (TRR 219), and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie; has received grants and personal fees from Medtronic and Recor; and has received personal fees from Bayer and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Hildick-Smith has received personal fees from Terumo. Dr Schultz has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular. Dr Valgimigli has received grants and personal fees from Terumo; and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia pharmaceuticals LTD, Universität Basel, Dept Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squibb SA, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Vesalio, Novartis, Chiesi, and PhaseBio. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To assess the effects of 1- or ≥3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients who received biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents for complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Methods and Results: In the MASTER DAPT trial, 3383 patients underwent non-complex (abbreviated DAPT, n = 1707; standard DAPT, n = 1676) and 1196 complex (abbreviated DAPT, n = 588; standard DAPT, n = 608) PCI. Co-primary outcomes at 335 days were net adverse clinical events [NACE; composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding academic research consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding events]; major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (MACCE; all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke); and Types 2, 3, or 5 BARC bleeding. Net adverse clinical events and MACCE did not differ with abbreviated vs. standard DAPT among patients with complex [hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-1.52, and HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.92, respectively] and non-complex PCI (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.71-1.15, and HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.69-1.21; Pinteraction = 0.60 and 0.26, respectively). BARC 2, 3, or 5 was reduced with abbreviated DAPT in patients with and without complex PCI (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.98, and HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.89; Pinteraction = 0.72). Among the 2816 patients with complex PCI and/or ACS, NACE and MACCE did not differ and BARC 2, 3, or 5 was lower with abbreviated DAPT., Conclusion: In HBR patients free from recurrent ischaemic events at 1 month, DAPT discontinuation was associated with similar NACE and MACCE and lower bleeding rates compared with standard DAPT, regardless of PCI or patient complexity., Clinical Trial Registration: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03023020, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.V. received an institutional grant from Terumo and consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Terumo, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, DORSIA Pharmaceuticals LTD, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squib SA, Biotronik, Boston scientific, Medtronic, Vesalio, Novartis, Chiesi, PhaseBio, ECRI. P.C.S. received institutional grants from Microport, SMT, Daichy Sankyo, and Abbott Vascular; consulting fees from Cavis and Abbott Vascular; honoraria from Abiomed, Terumo, and Abbott Vascular; participated on advisory board of Terumo, Abbott Vascular, and SMI. B.M. received grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific; Speaker fee from Biotronik, Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. T.C. received consulting fees from Medtronic, Abbott vascular, Terumo, and Boston Scientific; honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott vascular, Terumo, and Boston Scientific. F.T.N.M. received consulting fees from Terumo. K.R. received honoraria from Boston Scientific, Terumo, and Astra Zeneca. P.V. received consulting fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, CSL Behring, and Bayer AG; honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo and Servier; participated on advisory board for Daiichi Sankyo. All other authors declared no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims To compare prolonged bivalirudin infusion vs. an intra-procedural only bivalirudin infusion administration in subjects with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) regarding residual stent strut thrombosis. Methods and results Multivessel STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and scheduled for a staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before hospital discharge were selected among those allocated to either prolonged bivalirudin or intra-procedural only bivalirudin infusion in the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and angioX) Treatment-Duration study. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the infarct-related artery was performed at the end of PPCI and 4–5 days thereafter during staged intervention. The predefined endpoint was the percentage difference in the number of stent cross-sections with a thrombotic area >5% at the end of PPCI and at the time of staged PCI (ΔThCS). Between September 2013 and November 2015, 137 were randomized to either intra-procedural only bivalirudin infusion (N  = 64) or prolonged bivalirudin (N  = 73) at 16 European sites. Mean stent area, minimum lumen area, percentage of malapposed struts, and mean percent thrombotic area were comparable after index or staged PCI. The difference in the proportion of frames with percent thrombotic area >5% (ΔTh > 5%) were −7.7 (−22.1 to 5.1) in the intra-procedural bivalirudin infusion group and −8.8 (−23.1 to 2.6) in the prolonged infusion group (P  = 0.994). Time from index to follow-up OCT imaging and the infarct vessel artery did not affect this OCT-based endpoint. Conclusion A strategy of prolonged bivalirudin infusion after PPCI did not reduce residual stent strut thrombosis when compared with intra-procedural only bivalirudin infusion administration (funded by The Medicines Company and Terumo; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The twelve‑lead electrocardiogram (ECG) has become an essential tool for the diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, several areas of residual controversies or gaps in evidence exist. Among them, P-wave abnormalities identifying atrial ischemia/infarction are largely neglected in clinical practice, and their diagnostic and prognostic implications remain elusive; the value of ECG to identify the culprit lesion has been investigated, but validated criteria indicating the presence of coronary occlusion in patients without ST-elevation are lacking; finally, which criteria among the multiple proposed, better define pathological Q-waves or success of revascularisation deserve further investigations.Methods: The Minimizing Adverse hemorrhagic events via TRansradial access site and systemic Implementation of AngioX (MATRIX) trial was designed to test the impact of bleeding avoidance strategies on ischemic and bleeding outcomes across the whole spectrum of patients with ACS receiving invasive management. The ECG-MATRIX is a pre-specified sub-study of the MATRIX programme which aims at analyzing the clinical value of ECG metrics in 4516 ACS patients (with and without ST-segment elevation in 2212 and 2304 cases, respectively) with matched pre and post-treatment ECGs.Conclusions: This study represents a unique opportunity to further investigate the role of ECGs in the diagnosis and risk stratification of ACS patients with or without ST-segment deviation, as well as to assess whether the radial approach and bivalirudin may affect post-treatment ECG metrics and patterns in a large contemporary ACS population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox (MATRIX) programme was designed to assess the comparative safety and effectiveness of radial versus femoral access and of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with the whole spectrum of acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. Here we describe the prespecified final 1-year outcomes of the entire programme.Methods: MATRIX was a programme of three nested, randomised, multicentre, open-label, superiority trials in patients with acute coronary syndrome in 78 hospitals in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were simultaneously randomly assigned (1:1) before coronary angiography to radial or femoral access and to bivalirudin, with or without post-percutaneous coronary intervention infusion or unfractionated heparin (one-step inclusion). Patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned (1:1) before coronary angiography to radial or femoral access and, only if deemed eligible to percutaneous coronary intervention after angiography (two-step inclusion), entered the antithrombin type and treatment duration programmes. Randomisation sequences were computer generated, blocked, and stratified by intended new or current use of P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel vs ticagrelor or prasugrel), and acute coronary syndrome type (ST-elevation myocardial infarction, troponin-positive, or troponin-negative non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome). Bivalirudin was given as a bolus of 0·75 mg/kg, followed immediately by an infusion of 1·75 mg/kg per h until completion of percutaneous coronary intervention. Heparin was given at 70-100 units per kg in patients not receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and at 50-70 units per kg in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Clinical follow-up was done at 30 days and 1 year. Co-primary outcomes for MATRIX access and MATRIX antithrombin type were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to 30 days; and net adverse clinical events, defined as the composite of non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding, or major adverse cardiovascular events up to 30 days. The primary outcome for MATRIX treatment duration was the composite of urgent target vessel revascularisation, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events up to 30 days. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627.Findings: Between Oct 11, 2011, and Nov 7, 2014, we randomly assigned 8404 patients to receive radial (4197 patients) or femoral (4207 patients) access. Of these 8404 patients, 7213 were included in the MATRIX antithrombin type study and were randomly assigned to bivalirudin (3610 patients) or heparin (3603 patients). Patients assigned to bivalirudin were included in the MATRIX treatment duration study, and were randomly assigned to post-procedure infusion (1799 patients) or no post-procedure infusion (1811 patients). At 1 year, major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ between patients assigned to radial access compared with those assigned to femoral access (14·2% vs 15·7%; rate ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·80-1·00; p=0·0526), but net adverse clinical events were fewer with radial than with femoral access (15·2% vs 17·2%; 0·87, 0·78-0·97; p=0·0128). Compared with heparin, bivalirudin was not associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular (15·8% vs 16·8%; 0·94, 0·83-1·05; p=0·28) or net adverse clinical events (17·0% vs 18·4%; 0·91, 0·81-1·02; p=0·10). The composite of urgent target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events did not differ with or without post-procedure bivalirudin infusion (17·4% vs 17·4%; 0·99, 0·84-1·16; p=0·90).Interpretation: In patients with acute coronary syndrome, radial access was associated with lower rates of net adverse clinical events compared with femoral access, but not major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year. Bivalirudin with or without post-procedure infusion was not associated with lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events or net adverse clinical events. Radial access should become the default approach in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing invasive management.Funding: Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology, The Medicines Company, Terumo, amd Canada Research Chairs Programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the BRIGHT-4 (Bivalirudin With Prolonged Full-Dose Infusion During Primary PCI Versus Heparin Trial-4), anticoagulation with bivalirudin plus a 2- to 4-hour high-dose infusion after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduced all-cause mortality and bleeding without increasing reinfarction or stent thrombosis compared with heparin alone in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). These findings require external validation. This study sought to determine outcomes of bivalirudin vs heparin anticoagulation during PCI in STEMI. We performed an individual-patient–data meta-analysis of all large randomized trials of bivalirudin vs heparin in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI performed before BRIGHT-4. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Six trials randomizing 15,254 patients were included. Pooled across all regimens of bivalirudin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) use, bivalirudin reduced 30-day all-cause mortality (2.5% vs 2.9%; adjusted OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.62-0.99), cardiac mortality (adjusted OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.54-0.88), and major bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.44-0.64) but increased reinfarction (adjusted OR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.02-1.65) and stent thrombosis (adjusted OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.05-1.93) compared with heparin. In 4 trials in which 6,244 patients were randomized to bivalirudin plus a high-dose post-PCI infusion vs heparin without planned GPI use (the BRIGHT-4 regimens), 30-day all-cause mortality occurred in 1.8% vs 2.9% of patients, respectively (adjusted OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.48-1.12), and bivalirudin reduced cardiac mortality (adjusted OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39-0.97) and major bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.70), with similar rates of reinfarction (adjusted OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.58-1.38) and stent thrombosis (adjusted OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.41-1.57). In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, bivalirudin with a 2- to 4-hour post-PCI high-dose infusion reduced cardiac mortality and major bleeding without an increase in ischemic events compared with heparin monotherapy with provisional GPI use, confirming the BRIGHT-4 results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The value of prolonged bivalirudin infusion after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with or without ST-segment elevation remains unclear.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of a full or low post-PCI bivalirudin regimen in ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation.Methods: The MATRIX program assigned bivalirudin to patients without or with a post-PCI infusion at either a full (1.75 mg/kg/h for ≤4 h) or reduced (0.25 mg/kg/h for ≤6 h) regimen at the operator's discretion. The primary endpoint was the 30-day composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, or major bleeding).Results: Among 3,610 patients assigned to bivalirudin, 1,799 were randomized to receive and 1,811 not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Post-PCI full bivalirudin was administered in 612 (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], n = 399; non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes [NSTE-ACS], n = 213), whereas the low-dose regimen was administered in 1,068 (STEMI, n = 519; NSTE-ACS, n = 549) patients. The primary outcome did not differ in STEMI or NSTE-ACS patients who received or did not receive post-PCI bivalirudin. However, full compared with low bivalirudin regimen remained associated with a significant reduction of the primary endpoint after multivariable (rate ratio: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.35; p < 0.001) or propensity score (rate ratio: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.26; p < 0.001) adjustment. Full post-PCI bivalirudin was associated with improved outcomes consistently across ACS types compared with the no post-PCI infusion or heparin groups.Conclusions: In ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation, the primary endpoint did not differ with or without post-PCI bivalirudin infusion but a post-PCI full dose was associated with improved outcomes when compared with no or low-dose post-PCI infusion or heparin (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. INSET: Panel: Research in context.. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]